Battleground issue

darkMeliodasdarkMeliodas Member Posts: 38 ★
in General Discussion
I have played about 50 or 60 games in battlegrounds and in each and every game I have had to start by choosing defender... clearly this is a huge disadvantage against the opponent and it is difficult for me to move up. Is this happening to anyone else? Is it a bug or am I having tremendous bad luck? Does anyone know what the AI ​​is based on to choose the starting order?

Thank you

Comments

  • EmomikeEmomike Member Posts: 233 ★★
    Sounds like terribly bad luck. I'll have runs and I'll have to pick 1st 10 times then I'll have runs and pick second for long stretches. I'm not sure about the criteria but I doubt it's random.
  • ahmynutsahmynuts Member Posts: 7,590 ★★★★★
    Tremendous bad luck
  • DaFunkness808DaFunkness808 Member Posts: 1
    I’m in the same boat. Someone mentioned in a YouTubers live stream that it was based on the search time to match, but I haven’t found this to be credible. I sent a ticket but don’t expect to receive a response from Kabam’s support. It’s super frustrating and unmotivating…
  • obsidimanobsidiman Member Posts: 974 ★★★
    As have been told to others posting the exact same thing...

    Bad RNG... bad luck... whatever you want to call it. You aren't being intentionally wronged, it's not being done maliciously, and it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • InsaneSkullInsaneSkull Member Posts: 332 ★★
    edited October 2023
    I have 70% matches with placing first. Won't mind as i get strategic advantage to bait out attacker. Terrible luck with draft, opponent gets last pick most of the time :smiley:
  • WinterFieldsWinterFields Member Posts: 786 ★★★★
    Forgottentomato said:

    It should have been like this:

    The player with higher total rating of all 30 champs in his deck places his defender first. If somehow the rating are equal than 5050.

    Wouldn't that punish people for having a more developed roster?
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Kpratish1997Kpratish1997 Member Posts: 122 ★
    darkMeliodas said:

    I have played about 50 or 60 games in battlegrounds and in each and every game I have had to start by choosing defender... clearly this is a huge disadvantage against the opponent and it is difficult for me to move up. Is this happening to anyone else? Is it a bug or am I having tremendous bad luck? Does anyone know what the AI ​​is based on to choose the starting order?

    Thank you

    Bro, when you have to choose 1st, always start with an attacker.
  • WinterFieldsWinterFields Member Posts: 786 ★★★★
    Forgottentomato said:

    WinterFields said:

    Forgottentomato said:

    It should have been like this:

    The player with higher total rating of all 30 champs in his deck places his defender first. If somehow the rating are equal than 5050.

    Wouldn't that punish people for having a more developed roster?
    Levels the field more although people might add their lowest rating champs too but then it's tactical and not random
    I get what you're saying, but roster size isn't supposed to have a level playing field. The point is to progress your account to be stronger and stronger and gives those who are more dedicated to the game a reason to still be dedicated.

    Things like picking first or second though should be more level, but I don't believe it should be at the cost of discouraging the competitive edge
  • peixemacacopeixemacaco Member Posts: 3,078 ★★★★
    Random always.

    For me it's normal.
  • Viper198787Viper198787 Member Posts: 597 ★★★★
    edited October 2023
    I don’t understand why BG is setup this way. Why not have defenders and attackers setup exactly like the bans where both players pick a defender at the same time, then both players pick an attacker at the same time? That would relieve the issue of one person having an advantage.
  • SummonerNRSummonerNR Member, Guardian Posts: 12,819 Guardian
    Viper198787 said:

    I don’t understand why BG is setup this way. Why not have defenders and attackers setup exactly like the bans where both players pick a defender at the same time, then both players pick an attacker at the same time? That would relieve the issue of one person having an advantage.

    SHOULD BE THIS.

    That would be a true “Level Field”, as well as cut the time in half that it takes for all those selections (both players doing it at SAME TIME).
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,677 Guardian
    Viper198787 said:

    I don’t understand why BG is setup this way. Why not have defenders and attackers setup exactly like the bans where both players pick a defender at the same time, then both players pick an attacker at the same time? That would relieve the issue of one person having an advantage.

    I suspect it is because the designers preferred to have the strategic element of turn based picking. When you're picking in turns, there's strategic options available that involve thinking about who you're going to use, based on what your opponent decides to use and how that depletes their remaining deck. The presumption is that who has the advantage or disadvantage would even out in the long run, but having to sometimes choose first and sometimes choose second adds variety to the matches. When both players choose simultaneously there's a lost opportunity for strategic play.

    Whether it is actually evening out overall is a separate issue, but I suspect that is the reason why we pick in turns rather than simultaneously. More interesting options that were supposed to even out to give no one a net overall advantage or disadvantage.
  • Viper198787Viper198787 Member Posts: 597 ★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Viper198787 said:

    I don’t understand why BG is setup this way. Why not have defenders and attackers setup exactly like the bans where both players pick a defender at the same time, then both players pick an attacker at the same time? That would relieve the issue of one person having an advantage.

    I suspect it is because the designers preferred to have the strategic element of turn based picking. When you're picking in turns, there's strategic options available that involve thinking about who you're going to use, based on what your opponent decides to use and how that depletes their remaining deck. The presumption is that who has the advantage or disadvantage would even out in the long run, but having to sometimes choose first and sometimes choose second adds variety to the matches. When both players choose simultaneously there's a lost opportunity for strategic play.

    Whether it is actually evening out overall is a separate issue, but I suspect that is the reason why we pick in turns rather than simultaneously. More interesting options that were supposed to even out to give no one a net overall advantage or disadvantage.
    Maybe it leads to more strategic play, but this will always result in a net advantage for one person, which in a competitive mode like BGs, is rather unfair don't you think? Over the past 3 days I've played roughly 10 or so BG matches where I was always the one picking first. If we are to assume you're being matched with someone of equal roster and skill (as matchmaking should, especially in GC), you will pretty much always play all 3 matches, and in that case, I'm at a disadvantage. I don't recall having a streak where the opponent was always the first pick 10 times in a row, especially not in GC as these are the only matches I've played in GC. If you can explain to me how picking first 10/10 matches in GC is strategic and how that evens out in the long run, please tell me, because as it stands currently I've gotten the short end of the stick.
  • obsidimanobsidiman Member Posts: 974 ★★★
    @Viper198787 can I ask if you are actively tracking who picks first? Like screenshots or recording it with pen and paper?

    The reason I ask is because of your statement, "I don't recall having a streak where the opponent was always the first to pick 10 times in a row". This is not a personal attack, but chances are if it did happen, you wouldn't remember unless you actively track it. The opponent picking first in a lengthy streak benefits you. You're more apt to remember times where things went against you.

    I don't often remember poker hands that won me big pots, but I can recall with crystal clarity the bad beats I took to lose.
  • Viper198787Viper198787 Member Posts: 597 ★★★★
    obsidiman said:

    @Viper198787 can I ask if you are actively tracking who picks first? Like screenshots or recording it with pen and paper?

    The reason I ask is because of your statement, "I don't recall having a streak where the opponent was always the first to pick 10 times in a row". This is not a personal attack, but chances are if it did happen, you wouldn't remember unless you actively track it. The opponent picking first in a lengthy streak benefits you. You're more apt to remember times where things went against you.

    I don't often remember poker hands that won me big pots, but I can recall with crystal clarity the bad beats I took to lose.

    That’s a fair point but I did track every match I’ve had in GC and I have picked first 100% of the time. So while I’ll agree to your point about possibly not remembering the good, I can say without question, all my GC matches have been tracked. Your comment does give me an interesting experiment for next season though.
Sign In or Register to comment.