In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
If Kabam replied and said it is random and you had bad luck, would you believe them? Because that prolly is the answer.
In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
If Kabam replied and said it is random and you had bad luck, would you believe them? Because that prolly is the answer.
I would because they don't have an incentive to lie. As things stand, that is very unlikely to be the answer. They would have said that already if it was so simple.
In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
If Kabam replied and said it is random and you had bad luck, would you believe them? Because that prolly is the answer.
Mate you saw the numbers I posted. If it’s fair and truly 50/50 the odds of me picking first 45 of 50 times is astronomically low. That isn’t just “bad luck” that’s something off
In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
If Kabam replied and said it is random and you had bad luck, would you believe them? Because that prolly is the answer.
Mate you saw the numbers I posted. If it’s fair and truly 50/50 the odds of me picking first 45 of 50 times is astronomically low. That isn’t just “bad luck” that’s something off
On top of it, there are people who are going 50 on 50 or even longer picking first. Those are really low odds and together even more so.
In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
If Kabam replied and said it is random and you had bad luck, would you believe them? Because that prolly is the answer.
I would because they don't have an incentive to lie. As things stand, that is very unlikely to be the answer. They would have said that already if it was so simple.
Even if it was that simple they are under no obligation to answer anyone here about how it works and can just choose to ignore everyone, which they are doing
I would because they don't have an incentive to lie. As things stand, that is very unlikely to be the answer. They would have said that already if it was so simple.
Even if it was that simple they are under no obligation to answer anyone here about how it works and can just choose to ignore everyone, which they are doing
A section of players have a permanent handicap in what is supposed to be a competition and the premier content in the game.
They don't have an obligation to explain how it works. But they do have an obligation to explain if paying customers are being secretly penalised at random.
How is this different from disclosing drop rates? People are buying elder marks to play BGs, shouldn't they be told if that their chances of winning are randomly being lowered?
I don't think "secretly penalised" is the word. If I was the developer and I had players who were always going first I'd assume "bug", read the code and see how it actually works.
In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
If Kabam replied and said it is random and you had bad luck, would you believe them? Because that prolly is the answer.
But there have been SOOO MANY of these reports of extremely long streaks of picking first. Not just isolated random anomalies.
As others have maybe theorized, could it be based on strength of your Deck (or general roster prestige) vs opponent ??? And if most of these reports are from people who have basically hit their upper limit of reaching Platinum (II) and so match mostly against much higher opponents at that point. Then maybe the 2 go hand-in-hand. Cav or TB players always matching against strong Paragon once they reach Plat, as well as (based on roster strength) thus also always being forced to pick first now that they reached Plat.
(I don’t actually know if that is the case for if picking first is based in strength, or if it is random. But that might help explain things)
Is anyone who is having such long “Pick 1st” streaks actually higher level Paragon with strong rosters ?? Or does it seem to be only from among lower accounts after reaching Platinum ??
I don't think "secretly penalised" is the word. If I was the developer and I had players who were always going first I'd assume "bug", read the code and see how it actually works.
How are players to know, if there is no acknowledgement?
There are enough people gaslighting here that going first 50 times in a row is perfectly normal if the chance of going first were the same for both players.
Someone even said these things happen with a large enough sample size. Just to put it in context, the rarity of 50 consecutive first picks is close to one in a quadrillion, which is same as if all million odd MCoC players played a million BG matches each, that sequence would be occur only once across a 1000 mutliverses where those million x million matches were played. Large enough sample size indeed.
In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
If Kabam replied and said it is random and you had bad luck, would you believe them? Because that prolly is the answer.
But there have been SOOO MANY of these reports of extremely long streaks of picking first. Not just isolated random anomalies.
As others have maybe theorized, could it be based on strength of your Deck (or general roster prestige) vs opponent ??? And if most of these reports are from people who have basically hit their upper limit of reaching Platinum (II) and so match mostly against much higher opponents at that point. Then maybe the 2 go hand-in-hand. Cav or TB players always matching against strong Paragon once they reach Plat, as well as (based on roster strength) thus also always being forced to pick first now that they reached Plat.
(I don’t actually know if that is the case for if picking first is based in strength, or if it is random. But that might help explain things)
Is anyone who is having such long “Pick 1st” streaks actually higher level Paragon with strong rosters ?? Or does it seem to be only from among lower accounts after reaching Platinum ??
I have a strong Paragon deck, 2 7/2s and 5 6/5s, 17k champion prestige. I was seeded and have progressed to Vibranum III winning 70-80% of my matches. The last 15 or so I've picked first. I suspect win/loss ratio might be a factor but thats pure conjecture. I do not believe its 50/50 random.
In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
If Kabam replied and said it is random and you had bad luck, would you believe them? Because that prolly is the answer.
But there have been SOOO MANY of these reports of extremely long streaks of picking first. Not just isolated random anomalies.
As others have maybe theorized, could it be based on strength of your Deck (or general roster prestige) vs opponent ??? And if most of these reports are from people who have basically hit their upper limit of reaching Platinum (II) and so match mostly against much higher opponents at that point. Then maybe the 2 go hand-in-hand. Cav or TB players always matching against strong Paragon once they reach Plat, as well as (based on roster strength) thus also always being forced to pick first now that they reached Plat.
(I don’t actually know if that is the case for if picking first is based in strength, or if it is random. But that might help explain things)
Is anyone who is having such long “Pick 1st” streaks actually higher level Paragon with strong rosters ?? Or does it seem to be only from among lower accounts after reaching Platinum ??
Nothing to do with VT tier or progression or roster size. I've had matches of all types during all times across multiple tiers, I only pick first. My opponents just get an advantage handed over every single time.
In a large enough sample size, if something can possibly happen, it will.
Which is exactly the point. The sample size here isn't large enough for so many outlier sequences to emerge.
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
If Kabam replied and said it is random and you had bad luck, would you believe them? Because that prolly is the answer.
But there have been SOOO MANY of these reports of extremely long streaks of picking first. Not just isolated random anomalies.
As others have maybe theorized, could it be based on strength of your Deck (or general roster prestige) vs opponent ??? And if most of these reports are from people who have basically hit their upper limit of reaching Platinum (II) and so match mostly against much higher opponents at that point. Then maybe the 2 go hand-in-hand. Cav or TB players always matching against strong Paragon once they reach Plat, as well as (based on roster strength) thus also always being forced to pick first now that they reached Plat.
(I don’t actually know if that is the case for if picking first is based in strength, or if it is random. But that might help explain things)
Is anyone who is having such long “Pick 1st” streaks actually higher level Paragon with strong rosters ?? Or does it seem to be only from among lower accounts after reaching Platinum ??
I have 19K prestige and 3mil rating. I don't think it has anything to do with rosters
People here go on about how BG is a competition and everyone should have the same opportunity. Now that there is actual evidence of systematic rigging of matches (however marginal one thinks the advantage is), there is hardly any interest in getting a clarification to this matter.
If order of picks is set to favor some and penalise others, then what other hidden advantages are built in to the game modes? There are several steps before the actual fights, with many opportunities for subtle manipulations.
The way this has been handled is very disappointing. Even an indication that there is an investigation into this would have been helpful. We are halfway through the season, who knows how many people have burnt through their EM stash and paid for more while having their win rates artificially reduced due to this "bug".
5-10% change in win rates due to this bug will lead to those players playing 5-20 more matches on each tier. Don't take my word for it, here are the calculations by the most relied source of statistics on the forum on how win rates affect progression for individual players.
Even if you think picking first is a small disadvantage, it will have massive impact at an individual player level through a season if they lose 1 more match in every 10 matches due to this. This is probably enough to ensure players who usually reach GC get stopped at Diamond or Vibranium, depending on the level of frustration it creates. It is incredible that there has been no official comment on this yet.
I’m still keeping track and I’ve now picked first in 63 of my last 66 matches, dating back to last season
Played 7 matches since this post and picked first in all 7, bringing me to 70 of my last 73. Trying to be zen about it but really wish this issue could be acknowledged by Kabam… a simple “hey, that’s weird, we’ll look into it” would be fantastic
I finally broken my ~20 going first streak. What happened * I queued up * Somebody accepted and cancelled * I stayed in the queue * I got matched with a much weaker account
I'm at upwards of 60. It's a joke, I would have stopped a long time ago if there weren't alliance milestones. Just a rigged competition at this point without clarification from the devs.
After about 90 matches i got to go 2nd for the first time, played a few more after, so that’s about a 99% start rate. @Kabam Miike any update for us on this. I am not the only one asking for it here
Made it to GC…. Don’t recall being second. 6 matches in GC, never picked second.
At this point we might as well speculate that each profile pic is given a certain ranking which chooses start order and my profile pic is the lowest available.
Have you guys tested whether banning faster or longer changes it? I don't normally focus if im going first or 2nd so doesnt matter to me tbh. Someone HAS to always go first/second altho I am relieved That I get to place 2nd on round 3
Have you guys tested whether banning faster or longer changes it? I don't normally focus if im going first or 2nd so doesnt matter to me tbh. Someone HAS to always go first/second altho I am relieved That I get to place 2nd on round 3
I've had plenty of matches where my opponent finishes banning before me and others where I'm waiting on him. The result is still the same
I'm at upwards of 60. It's a joke, I would have stopped a long time ago if there weren't alliance milestones. Just a rigged competition at this point without clarification from the devs.
As someone who picked first more about 85% of the time through VT, I didn't really notice it actually hinder me. In fact, sometimes I thought it was helpful, because I could use round 1 to place the "Guaranteed Defender", such as Korg or Attuma. Then my opponent would have to pick first the next round when there was more uncertainty as to what each of us would do
Have you guys tested whether banning faster or longer changes it? I don't normally focus if im going first or 2nd so doesnt matter to me tbh. Someone HAS to always go first/second altho I am relieved That I get to place 2nd on round 3
As far as I have seen, it is not dependent on any factors you can control. I've tried EM/Energy Marks, queueing up until I get an instant match, accepting immediately, waiting till the timer reaches 1 second, banning quickly, letting the ban timer run out, changing decks. Nothing works.
Probably this is just a way to throttle win rates or a side effect of preferential treatment for accounts who are at the other end of this (picking second mostly). Given the FOMO around milestone rewards this season, people will play as long as it takes. Wins give 3x as many points as losses. More cash/units are spent if you can bring down win rates of people at 60-70%.
This season I am pretty much picking first all the time from what I can remember. My conjecture is there is some kind of unintentional bug for the bias, maybe it could be sth. Player’s in game name in alphabetical order or sth. Silly like that. Either way, Kabam should answer it at this point
I'm at upwards of 60. It's a joke, I would have stopped a long time ago if there weren't alliance milestones. Just a rigged competition at this point without clarification from the devs.
As someone who picked first more about 85% of the time through VT, I didn't really notice it actually hinder me. In fact, sometimes I thought it was helpful, because I could use round 1 to place the "Guaranteed Defender", such as Korg or Attuma. Then my opponent would have to pick first the next round when there was more uncertainty as to what each of us would do
As someone who has picked first all the time (except for once), this has definitely been a hindrance. Not an insurmountable one, since I have won probably 60-70% of my matches and progressed pretty comfortably. Of the 70+ matches I have played, I would have won 8-10 matches more comfortably if I had the chance to pick second. So this has easily cost me 2-3 tiers of progress and required me to play 15-25 more matches so far (~2000 elder marks or ~900 units). It's not game breaking at an individual level but is not insubstantial at all.
More than that, this type of match fixing makes a mockery of the claim that BG is a competition. If in the ongoing cricket world cup, some teams were guaranteed to win the toss and few others were guaranteed to lose it, this would have resulted in a scandal of epic proportions.
For people not familiar with the game, winning the toss in cricket gives a team the option to select whether to bat or bowl first - equivalent of batting or pitching first in baseball (or serving first in tennis). While the caliber of players on both sides is far more important, in games of fine margins (and in certain playing conditions) winning the toss can be a decisive factor in the outcome. BG is no different.
Given the number of high progress accounts that use "BG is a competition" as a crutch to pile on newbies when they complain about matchmaking or rewards, I'm surprised at the apathy of these very same accounts when the game is clearly discriminating and providing penalties and advantages to select player groups. Makes it pretty clear how self serving that particular line is and how little interest there is to actually preserve any integrity of the actual competition.
Have you guys tested whether banning faster or longer changes it? I don't normally focus if im going first or 2nd so doesnt matter to me tbh. Someone HAS to always go first/second altho I am relieved That I get to place 2nd on round 3
Yes i have, tested doing it as fast as possible and as slow as possible, outcome always the same
I'm curios as who is picking second 90-95% fo the time. I don't see them on the form mentioning it. Since it's PVP, someone has to be picking second the majority of the time. Anyone luck enough to pick second over 80% of the time come on down.
Comments
45 out of 50 is one of the better sequences here. Several one in a quadrillion events happening within a few million matches, deserves an investigation even if it is just a cursory one. At the bare minimum it calls for an acknowledgement of the phenomena from the team.
They don't have an obligation to explain how it works. But they do have an obligation to explain if paying customers are being secretly penalised at random.
How is this different from disclosing drop rates? People are buying elder marks to play BGs, shouldn't they be told if that their chances of winning are randomly being lowered?
If I was the developer and I had players who were always going first I'd assume "bug", read the code and see how it actually works.
Not just isolated random anomalies.
As others have maybe theorized, could it be based on strength of your Deck (or general roster prestige) vs opponent ???
And if most of these reports are from people who have basically hit their upper limit of reaching Platinum (II) and so match mostly against much higher opponents at that point. Then maybe the 2 go hand-in-hand.
Cav or TB players always matching against strong Paragon once they reach Plat, as well as (based on roster strength) thus also always being forced to pick first now that they reached Plat.
(I don’t actually know if that is the case for if picking first is based in strength, or if it is random. But that might help explain things)
Is anyone who is having such long “Pick 1st” streaks actually higher level Paragon with strong rosters ?? Or does it seem to be only from among lower accounts after reaching Platinum ??
There are enough people gaslighting here that going first 50 times in a row is perfectly normal if the chance of going first were the same for both players.
Someone even said these things happen with a large enough sample size. Just to put it in context, the rarity of 50 consecutive first picks is close to one in a quadrillion, which is same as if all million odd MCoC players played a million BG matches each, that sequence would be occur only once across a 1000 mutliverses where those million x million matches were played. Large enough sample size indeed.
I was seeded and have progressed to Vibranum III winning 70-80% of my matches.
The last 15 or so I've picked first.
I suspect win/loss ratio might be a factor but thats pure conjecture. I do not believe its 50/50 random.
1.1m TB in diamond 4
Match 1 - select second against 1m cav
Match 2 - select first against 2.8m cav
Match 3 - select second against 1.4m cav
As I’ve started earlier. I select second about 75% in my 4.8m account but my 3m and 1.1m accounts, it’s about 50/50 split.
People here go on about how BG is a competition and everyone should have the same opportunity. Now that there is actual evidence of systematic rigging of matches (however marginal one thinks the advantage is), there is hardly any interest in getting a clarification to this matter.
If order of picks is set to favor some and penalise others, then what other hidden advantages are built in to the game modes? There are several steps before the actual fights, with many opportunities for subtle manipulations.
The way this has been handled is very disappointing. Even an indication that there is an investigation into this would have been helpful. We are halfway through the season, who knows how many people have burnt through their EM stash and paid for more while having their win rates artificially reduced due to this "bug".
Even if you think picking first is a small disadvantage, it will have massive impact at an individual player level through a season if they lose 1 more match in every 10 matches due to this. This is probably enough to ensure players who usually reach GC get stopped at Diamond or Vibranium, depending on the level of frustration it creates. It is incredible that there has been no official comment on this yet.
What happened
* I queued up
* Somebody accepted and cancelled
* I stayed in the queue
* I got matched with a much weaker account
*shrug*
At this point we might as well speculate that each profile pic is given a certain ranking which chooses start order and my profile pic is the lowest available.
Probably this is just a way to throttle win rates or a side effect of preferential treatment for accounts who are at the other end of this (picking second mostly). Given the FOMO around milestone rewards this season, people will play as long as it takes. Wins give 3x as many points as losses. More cash/units are spent if you can bring down win rates of people at 60-70%.
More than that, this type of match fixing makes a mockery of the claim that BG is a competition. If in the ongoing cricket world cup, some teams were guaranteed to win the toss and few others were guaranteed to lose it, this would have resulted in a scandal of epic proportions.
For people not familiar with the game, winning the toss in cricket gives a team the option to select whether to bat or bowl first - equivalent of batting or pitching first in baseball (or serving first in tennis). While the caliber of players on both sides is far more important, in games of fine margins (and in certain playing conditions) winning the toss can be a decisive factor in the outcome. BG is no different.
Given the number of high progress accounts that use "BG is a competition" as a crutch to pile on newbies when they complain about matchmaking or rewards, I'm surprised at the apathy of these very same accounts when the game is clearly discriminating and providing penalties and advantages to select player groups. Makes it pretty clear how self serving that particular line is and how little interest there is to actually preserve any integrity of the actual competition.