Maybe just me, but I'm a bit puzzled why we've gotten to the point where there's a 4 page "discussion" and multiple threads about this. If it is indeed true that a subset of players are locked into going first every match, then I don't see how anyone can argue that it is not a bug. Like what is there to actually discuss? Either it's true and it's a bug, or it's not true and they're lying.
And it's not like it's a difficult bug to confirm. You don't need a video capturing it like with AI or Input bugs. Pick/placing order is definitely recorded on the servers. Just pull up the match history of the 4-5 people who's reporting this problem and it should be trivial to check if they've gone 50-100 matches going second only once as claimed.
The team could resolve this conversation in 5 minutes if they wanted. Why not just make a statement confirming/denying this?
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.
This is dumb math, if I am picking first 90% of the time, it doesn’t mean someone picking second 10% because I’m not fighting the same person over and over
Its not 1 person. And dumb math is getting to pick 2nd 1 time out of 100 and calling it 90-95%
Honestly it feels like you're just being ridiculous pedantic about this.
Yes, we all understand that 1/100 is not 90-95%. That doesn't change the fact that many of us (myself included) are placing first at a rate that is NOT the 50/50 were being told we have to do so. I can't give an exact % for myself, but during my VT climb I can say I remember 3 times placing second, out of however many matches it is from Plat 1 to GC with like 5 total losses along the way.
I will say though, since reaching GC I've noticed a huge change in the amount of times I place second. I won't assign it a percentage at the risk of being called a liar for not doing the exact math, but if I had this same rate of 1st/2nd placement in the VT as I'm having now, I probably wouldn't even question it.
Is matchmaking sometimes borked? Yes. But does that mean you have to be handheld all the way? No.
I have 0 issues with the matchmaking, what I do have an issue with is my top 3 decay champs being banned, then the game opting to leave a further 2 or 3 decay champs out of the drafting phase entirely. Why they have bans, then an entirely RNG drafting pool is beyond me. If you're banning 3 anyway just have an open drafting deck afterwards.
So many fights I've lost because I pick let's say peni first, so the opponent instantly gets galan, so I lock in mystics, then the opponent instantly gets titania or torch. Or if by some chance I get second pick, they lock in a kingpin or Korg, and I just get champs that get dunked on by them. RNG Drafting is stupid when the game can conveniently leave out counters to your opposing deck. When it leaves out Wiccan or Torch but it's like, oh, you want regular ironman 4 times, here you go.
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.
The person picking second has more information to craft their deck. They also get to place second on defence in rounds 1 and 3, when they have better information. In close games, this can be a decisive advantage.
Where has anyone said you can't win because you picked first. Why does it matter? There is an advantage to picking second, it is of greater information, this is not a debatable issue - you know more if you are picking second and can alter you decisions to adjust for that.
The whole reason that order of picks is supposed to be random is because there is an information advantage. It can be overcome, I have overcome it 60% of the time, others have more or less. But that is not the point.
In soccer it does not matter who kicks off first. It is still tossed for, and the opposing team gets to pick the side they want to defend first (and gets to kick-off in the second half). In tennis, serving first is a small advantage, it still gets tossed for.
Point isn't that it isn't a big deal - nobody knows if it is or not. It is an advantage/disadvantage, and it should not be locked in for some players.
E.g. In round 3, I have 2 mystics and NF left, opponent has HT and two other champs. If I am placing first one of my mystics will end up playing against HT (on offense or defense), if I am placing second I can definitely avoid HT v mystics. Can I still win the match? Yes. But I'm likely to win placing second more often.
I really want to know where you're getting this percentages. You don't keep track of anything on paper or excel or have any recordable evidence but you say you 90-95% of the time you're picking first and now you say you've "overcome it" 60% of the time. You sure have a lot of data without any data.
It's very much debatable and it's probably very much why you get a little hurt when people tell you it's a competition in these threads.
Placing first or second has nothing to do with picking first or second. The champs you have remaining is a direct relation to the champs you picked during drafting. Maybe pay attention to the drafting and make appropriate selections vs worry whether you pick first or second.
What do you mean placing first or second has nothing to do with picking first or second. If you pick first, you also place first. May be you should pay attention to how the game works before trolling.
You should be drafting to counter your opponent. Your example of 2 mystics and NF is just you drafting poorly.
What is your position here? Why is my inability to draft well any way relevant to me being locked in to picking first.
You are either saying
1. You don't believe that I have been picking first all matches (except once) this season. 2. You don't think there is an advantage to picking second.
If it is 1. fine, don't believe it. I don't know why you think I would lie about it. I've already hit my milestone points, I still win enough to make GC. Even in this post, I have not demanded any kind of restitution, I have only said I have been at a disadvantage. In any of the past seasons have never ever posted any of my matchups and complained about it being unfair. Anyway, if you think I am lying, there is nothing I can do to convince you (DNA3000 has confirmed it, if that helps). Thank you for your time.
If it is 2. That picking second is an advantage is just a fact. When you are picking second, you have more information about the match than you have while picking first. Many factors can help you mitigate it, but the particular advantage remains. It is similar to playing with black in chess, or serving first in tennis, or winning the toss in cricket. This isn't up for debate.
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.
The person picking second has more information to craft their deck. They also get to place second on defence in rounds 1 and 3, when they have better information. In close games, this can be a decisive advantage.
Where has anyone said you can't win because you picked first. Why does it matter? There is an advantage to picking second, it is of greater information, this is not a debatable issue - you know more if you are picking second and can alter you decisions to adjust for that.
The whole reason that order of picks is supposed to be random is because there is an information advantage. It can be overcome, I have overcome it 60% of the time, others have more or less. But that is not the point.
In soccer it does not matter who kicks off first. It is still tossed for, and the opposing team gets to pick the side they want to defend first (and gets to kick-off in the second half). In tennis, serving first is a small advantage, it still gets tossed for.
Point isn't that it isn't a big deal - nobody knows if it is or not. It is an advantage/disadvantage, and it should not be locked in for some players.
E.g. In round 3, I have 2 mystics and NF left, opponent has HT and two other champs. If I am placing first one of my mystics will end up playing against HT (on offense or defense), if I am placing second I can definitely avoid HT v mystics. Can I still win the match? Yes. But I'm likely to win placing second more often.
I really want to know where you're getting this percentages. You don't keep track of anything on paper or excel or have any recordable evidence but you say you 90-95% of the time you're picking first and now you say you've "overcome it" 60% of the time. You sure have a lot of data without any data.
It's very much debatable and it's probably very much why you get a little hurt when people tell you it's a competition in these threads.
Placing first or second has nothing to do with picking first or second. The champs you have remaining is a direct relation to the champs you picked during drafting. Maybe pay attention to the drafting and make appropriate selections vs worry whether you pick first or second.
What do you mean placing first or second has nothing to do with picking first or second. If you pick first, you also place first. May be you should pay attention to how the game works before trolling.
You should be drafting to counter your opponent. Your example of 2 mystics and NF is just you drafting poorly.
What is your position here? Why is my inability to draft well any way relevant to me being locked in to picking first.
You are either saying
1. You don't believe that I have been picking first all matches (except once) this season. 2. You don't think there is an advantage to picking second.
If it is 1. fine, don't believe it. I don't know why you think I would lie about it. I've already hit my milestone points, I still win enough to make GC. Even in this post, I have not demanded any kind of restitution, I have only said I have been at a disadvantage. In any of the past seasons have never ever posted any of my matchups and complained about it being unfair. Anyway, if you think I am lying, there is nothing I can do to convince you (DNA3000 has confirmed it, if that helps). Thank you for your time.
If it is 2. That picking second is an advantage is just a fact. When you are picking second, you have more information about the match than you have while picking first. Many factors can help you mitigate it, but the particular advantage remains. It is similar to playing with black in chess, or serving first in tennis, or winning the toss in cricket. This isn't up for debate.
It's both.
RE: disadvantage of placing first. It's just a fact, your belief in it doesn't change that in anyway. Person placing second has more information about the match and an ability to react to their opponent's moves.
Is matchmaking sometimes borked? Yes. But does that mean you have to be handheld all the way? No.
I have 0 issues with the matchmaking, what I do have an issue with is my top 3 decay champs being banned, then the game opting to leave a further 2 or 3 decay champs out of the drafting phase entirely. Why they have bans, then an entirely RNG drafting pool is beyond me. If you're banning 3 anyway just have an open drafting deck afterwards.
So many fights I've lost because I pick let's say peni first, so the opponent instantly gets galan, so I lock in mystics, then the opponent instantly gets titania or torch. Or if by some chance I get second pick, they lock in a kingpin or Korg, and I just get champs that get dunked on by them. RNG Drafting is stupid when the game can conveniently leave out counters to your opposing deck. When it leaves out Wiccan or Torch but it's like, oh, you want regular ironman 4 times, here you go.
You do realise that it's essentially a card game, right? You can't expect to be playing poker and be able to ask the dealer for four aces. My advice would be to build your deck with versatile champions and not think about perfect counters. I just took out a Korg with Juggernaut quite successfully. Would love to always draft my rank 5 ascended Kitty Pryde but that's not how the game works.
Is matchmaking sometimes borked? Yes. But does that mean you have to be handheld all the way? No.
I have 0 issues with the matchmaking, what I do have an issue with is my top 3 decay champs being banned, then the game opting to leave a further 2 or 3 decay champs out of the drafting phase entirely. Why they have bans, then an entirely RNG drafting pool is beyond me. If you're banning 3 anyway just have an open drafting deck afterwards.
So many fights I've lost because I pick let's say peni first, so the opponent instantly gets galan, so I lock in mystics, then the opponent instantly gets titania or torch. Or if by some chance I get second pick, they lock in a kingpin or Korg, and I just get champs that get dunked on by them. RNG Drafting is stupid when the game can conveniently leave out counters to your opposing deck. When it leaves out Wiccan or Torch but it's like, oh, you want regular ironman 4 times, here you go.
You do realise that it's essentially a card game, right? You can't expect to be playing poker and be able to ask the dealer for four aces. My advice would be to build your deck with versatile champions and not think about perfect counters. I just took out a Korg with Juggernaut quite successfully. Would love to always draft my rank 5 ascended Kitty Pryde but that's not how the game works.
A good example of this I've used this season is Moleman. Many people I face have so many mystic/science champs that their mutant options are lacking. Throw in Moleman, who people don't expect to see anyway, without a mutant option, I get a win basically every time.
BG encourages outside the box thinking and being able to work with what you've got. Those who can do that rise to top much faster
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.
The person picking second has more information to craft their deck. They also get to place second on defence in rounds 1 and 3, when they have better information. In close games, this can be a decisive advantage.
Where has anyone said you can't win because you picked first. Why does it matter? There is an advantage to picking second, it is of greater information, this is not a debatable issue - you know more if you are picking second and can alter you decisions to adjust for that.
The whole reason that order of picks is supposed to be random is because there is an information advantage. It can be overcome, I have overcome it 60% of the time, others have more or less. But that is not the point.
In soccer it does not matter who kicks off first. It is still tossed for, and the opposing team gets to pick the side they want to defend first (and gets to kick-off in the second half). In tennis, serving first is a small advantage, it still gets tossed for.
Point isn't that it isn't a big deal - nobody knows if it is or not. It is an advantage/disadvantage, and it should not be locked in for some players.
E.g. In round 3, I have 2 mystics and NF left, opponent has HT and two other champs. If I am placing first one of my mystics will end up playing against HT (on offense or defense), if I am placing second I can definitely avoid HT v mystics. Can I still win the match? Yes. But I'm likely to win placing second more often.
I really want to know where you're getting this percentages. You don't keep track of anything on paper or excel or have any recordable evidence but you say you 90-95% of the time you're picking first and now you say you've "overcome it" 60% of the time. You sure have a lot of data without any data.
It's very much debatable and it's probably very much why you get a little hurt when people tell you it's a competition in these threads.
Placing first or second has nothing to do with picking first or second. The champs you have remaining is a direct relation to the champs you picked during drafting. Maybe pay attention to the drafting and make appropriate selections vs worry whether you pick first or second.
What do you mean placing first or second has nothing to do with picking first or second. If you pick first, you also place first. May be you should pay attention to how the game works before trolling.
You should be drafting to counter your opponent. Your example of 2 mystics and NF is just you drafting poorly.
What is your position here? Why is my inability to draft well any way relevant to me being locked in to picking first.
You are either saying
1. You don't believe that I have been picking first all matches (except once) this season. 2. You don't think there is an advantage to picking second.
If it is 1. fine, don't believe it. I don't know why you think I would lie about it. I've already hit my milestone points, I still win enough to make GC. Even in this post, I have not demanded any kind of restitution, I have only said I have been at a disadvantage. In any of the past seasons have never ever posted any of my matchups and complained about it being unfair. Anyway, if you think I am lying, there is nothing I can do to convince you (DNA3000 has confirmed it, if that helps). Thank you for your time.
If it is 2. That picking second is an advantage is just a fact. When you are picking second, you have more information about the match than you have while picking first. Many factors can help you mitigate it, but the particular advantage remains. It is similar to playing with black in chess, or serving first in tennis, or winning the toss in cricket. This isn't up for debate.
It's both.
RE: disadvantage of placing first. It's just a fact, your belief in it doesn't change that in anyway. Person placing second has more information about the match and an ability to react to their opponent's moves.
You've already said you've won 60% or something like of you matches and you've only picked 2nd once. It's obviously not that much of an advantage.
You still haven't answered how you know you would have won 8-10 more matches if you would have picked 2nd.
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’m in Vibranium II, started the season in Gold III. I can count on one hand and have fingers left over the number of times I’ve picked second. It wasn’t like this in previous seasons.
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.
There is no exaggeration here. I've picked first throughout this season, except once. There are enough online calculators to estimate the odds of this happening.
The chance of getting 99 heads out of a 100 tosses is P(99) = 7.88860905221012e-29 which is 8 times out of 10^30 (quadrillion quadrillion, if that helps)
So hard to stay away.. agh So you played 100+ matches and you picked 2nd 1 time.. and somehow that gives as a result 90-95% but you want us to trust your data and believe its not exaggerated. Should we question if you played 100+ matches with a 60%+ success rate picking up first 95% of the time (when its more like 99.5%)? Sorry not buying it.
Where is this 90-95% number coming from? I've said I've picked second once.
I have 450K+ solo points. There would be a handful of matches with energy because someone in the initial threads said EM and energy have different odds of picking first. If I played all 100 matches with EM and got 450K points, I would have exactly 50% win rate (you get 9,000 points for one win and one loss with EM). Since I played a few matches with energy, I likely have a higher win rate than 50%, I said ~60%. Here's my solo points if that helps.
Very nice 485k points, that screenshot shows that you kept track and picked 2nd how?
Maybe just me, but I'm a bit puzzled why we've gotten to the point where there's a 4 page "discussion" and multiple threads about this. If it is indeed true that a subset of players are locked into going first every match, then I don't see how anyone can argue that it is not a bug. Like what is there to actually discuss? Either it's true and it's a bug, or it's not true and they're lying.
And it's not like it's a difficult bug to confirm. You don't need a video capturing it like with AI or Input bugs. Pick/placing order is definitely recorded on the servers. Just pull up the match history of the 4-5 people who's reporting this problem and it should be trivial to check if they've gone 50-100 matches going second only once as claimed.
The team could resolve this conversation in 5 minutes if they wanted. Why not just make a statement confirming/denying this?
Well they can open a ticket with proof of their tracking instead of "oh trust me" for starters.
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.
This is dumb math, if I am picking first 90% of the time, it doesn’t mean someone picking second 10% because I’m not fighting the same person over and over
Its not 1 person. And dumb math is getting to pick 2nd 1 time out of 100 and calling it 90-95%
Honestly it feels like you're just being ridiculous pedantic about this.
Yes, we all understand that 1/100 is not 90-95%. That doesn't change the fact that many of us (myself included) are placing first at a rate that is NOT the 50/50 were being told we have to do so. I can't give an exact % for myself, but during my VT climb I can say I remember 3 times placing second, out of however many matches it is from Plat 1 to GC with like 5 total losses along the way.
I will say though, since reaching GC I've noticed a huge change in the amount of times I place second. I won't assign it a percentage at the risk of being called a liar for not doing the exact math, but if I had this same rate of 1st/2nd placement in the VT as I'm having now, I probably wouldn't even question it.
I am not being pedantic, its an issue that was noticed about 3 or 4 days ago by many people that kept on playing without collecting proof, that's my point.
RE: disadvantage of placing first. It's just a fact, your belief in it doesn't change that in anyway. Person placing second has more information about the match and an ability to react to their opponent's moves.
You've already said you've won 60% or something like of you matches and you've only picked 2nd once. It's obviously not that much of an advantage.
You still haven't answered how you know you would have won 8-10 more matches if you would have picked 2nd.
Why is the extent of advantage relevant? Why should you get to place second in half your games while I don't? We are not being equally treated here.
How many extra points have you got because of that? Can you prove you would have won all the matches you have won so far if you had been locked into placing first?
You are the one who claims BG is a competition. You and I are in the same competition, but you are advocating that I should have a structural disadvantage relative to you in this competition.
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.
This is dumb math, if I am picking first 90% of the time, it doesn’t mean someone picking second 10% because I’m not fighting the same person over and over
Its not 1 person. And dumb math is getting to pick 2nd 1 time out of 100 and calling it 90-95%
Honestly it feels like you're just being ridiculous pedantic about this.
Yes, we all understand that 1/100 is not 90-95%. That doesn't change the fact that many of us (myself included) are placing first at a rate that is NOT the 50/50 were being told we have to do so. I can't give an exact % for myself, but during my VT climb I can say I remember 3 times placing second, out of however many matches it is from Plat 1 to GC with like 5 total losses along the way.
I will say though, since reaching GC I've noticed a huge change in the amount of times I place second. I won't assign it a percentage at the risk of being called a liar for not doing the exact math, but if I had this same rate of 1st/2nd placement in the VT as I'm having now, I probably wouldn't even question it.
I am not being pedantic, its an issue that was noticed about 3 or 4 days ago by many people that kept on playing without collecting proof, that's my point.
How many people need to make the claim before you accept it?
Maybe just me, but I'm a bit puzzled why we've gotten to the point where there's a 4 page "discussion" and multiple threads about this. If it is indeed true that a subset of players are locked into going first every match, then I don't see how anyone can argue that it is not a bug. Like what is there to actually discuss? Either it's true and it's a bug, or it's not true and they're lying.
And it's not like it's a difficult bug to confirm. You don't need a video capturing it like with AI or Input bugs. Pick/placing order is definitely recorded on the servers. Just pull up the match history of the 4-5 people who's reporting this problem and it should be trivial to check if they've gone 50-100 matches going second only once as claimed.
The team could resolve this conversation in 5 minutes if they wanted. Why not just make a statement confirming/denying this?
The team has been tagged multiple times over this. They have consistently ignored it.
Very nice 485k points, that screenshot shows that you kept track and picked 2nd how?
What is the point? I've posted the screenshots of today's matches as well. Nothing is going to convince you, because you don't want to be convinced. You'll only care if it impacts you negatively, same as every time you bring out the "BG is a competition" line.
RE: disadvantage of placing first. It's just a fact, your belief in it doesn't change that in anyway. Person placing second has more information about the match and an ability to react to their opponent's moves.
You've already said you've won 60% or something like of you matches and you've only picked 2nd once. It's obviously not that much of an advantage.
You still haven't answered how you know you would have won 8-10 more matches if you would have picked 2nd.
Why is the extent of advantage relevant? Why should you get to place second in half your games while I don't? We are not being equally treated here.
How many extra points have you got because of that? Can you prove you would have won all the matches you have won so far if you had been locked into placing first?
You are the one who claims BG is a competition. You and I are in the same competition, but you are advocating that I should have a structural disadvantage relative to you in this competition.
DNA was right you are just mixing every subject on BGs over a bug that is affecting you, blacking out all info from a simple screenshot as if it was CIA eyes only documentation and "John Nashing" your arguments. If its a bug, open a ticket with the proof you show here. BG is a competition, and you happen to be caught in a bug, it doesnt stop being a competition because of that. Does soccer stop being a sport because of the betting scandals?.. The problem I have is that you mixed every argument there was about BGs into a "bug" that you tracked over 100 matches and the only proof comes up from today.. Sorry if I was skeptical; but you gave me every right to be.
Very nice 485k points, that screenshot shows that you kept track and picked 2nd how?
What is the point? I've posted the screenshots of today's matches as well. Nothing is going to convince you, because you don't want to be convinced. You'll only care if it impacts you negatively, same as every time you bring out the "BG is a competition" line.
Lol you posted after I posted this.. sorry I can't tell the future.
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.
This is dumb math, if I am picking first 90% of the time, it doesn’t mean someone picking second 10% because I’m not fighting the same person over and over
Its not 1 person. And dumb math is getting to pick 2nd 1 time out of 100 and calling it 90-95%
Honestly it feels like you're just being ridiculous pedantic about this.
Yes, we all understand that 1/100 is not 90-95%. That doesn't change the fact that many of us (myself included) are placing first at a rate that is NOT the 50/50 were being told we have to do so. I can't give an exact % for myself, but during my VT climb I can say I remember 3 times placing second, out of however many matches it is from Plat 1 to GC with like 5 total losses along the way.
I will say though, since reaching GC I've noticed a huge change in the amount of times I place second. I won't assign it a percentage at the risk of being called a liar for not doing the exact math, but if I had this same rate of 1st/2nd placement in the VT as I'm having now, I probably wouldn't even question it.
I am not being pedantic, its an issue that was noticed about 3 or 4 days ago by many people that kept on playing without collecting proof, that's my point.
How many people need to make the claim before you accept it?
I suggest you go read about the Mandela effect and groupthink
Played six games today, here are the screenshots, followed by match history and updated points. Picked first all six times.
Match history:
BG solo points:
Ok... so all you've done is show that you're scared of people seeing your champions, you opponents champions and that you won the last 6 matches even though you picked first.
You don't seem to be at any disadvantage. I fail to see the problem that you claim to have.
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.
This is dumb math, if I am picking first 90% of the time, it doesn’t mean someone picking second 10% because I’m not fighting the same person over and over
Its not 1 person. And dumb math is getting to pick 2nd 1 time out of 100 and calling it 90-95%
Honestly it feels like you're just being ridiculous pedantic about this.
Yes, we all understand that 1/100 is not 90-95%. That doesn't change the fact that many of us (myself included) are placing first at a rate that is NOT the 50/50 were being told we have to do so. I can't give an exact % for myself, but during my VT climb I can say I remember 3 times placing second, out of however many matches it is from Plat 1 to GC with like 5 total losses along the way.
I will say though, since reaching GC I've noticed a huge change in the amount of times I place second. I won't assign it a percentage at the risk of being called a liar for not doing the exact math, but if I had this same rate of 1st/2nd placement in the VT as I'm having now, I probably wouldn't even question it.
I am not being pedantic, its an issue that was noticed about 3 or 4 days ago by many people that kept on playing without collecting proof, that's my point.
How many people need to make the claim before you accept it?
I suggest you go read about the Mandela effect and groupthink
I am well aware people aren't always reliable and a large number of people saying something doesn't make it true. That being said, you can't just dismiss something because you haven't actually seen it yourself
RE: disadvantage of placing first. It's just a fact, your belief in it doesn't change that in anyway. Person placing second has more information about the match and an ability to react to their opponent's moves.
You've already said you've won 60% or something like of you matches and you've only picked 2nd once. It's obviously not that much of an advantage.
You still haven't answered how you know you would have won 8-10 more matches if you would have picked 2nd.
Why is the extent of advantage relevant? Why should you get to place second in half your games while I don't? We are not being equally treated here.
How many extra points have you got because of that? Can you prove you would have won all the matches you have won so far if you had been locked into placing first?
You are the one who claims BG is a competition. You and I are in the same competition, but you are advocating that I should have a structural disadvantage relative to you in this competition.
Again, you claim it's a disadvantage but somehow was able to win all 6 matches. BGs is a competition and you seem to be doing just fine in the competition and haven't had any issues getting the points you need. You've literally proved that it's not a disadvantage to you.
I don't have answers for you for your questions because I don't track whether I pick first or not. I also don't try and convince myself that I would have done better if I would have picked second. If I lose, I lost because I wasn't better than my opponent for the current fight.
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.
This is dumb math, if I am picking first 90% of the time, it doesn’t mean someone picking second 10% because I’m not fighting the same person over and over
Its not 1 person. And dumb math is getting to pick 2nd 1 time out of 100 and calling it 90-95%
Honestly it feels like you're just being ridiculous pedantic about this.
Yes, we all understand that 1/100 is not 90-95%. That doesn't change the fact that many of us (myself included) are placing first at a rate that is NOT the 50/50 were being told we have to do so. I can't give an exact % for myself, but during my VT climb I can say I remember 3 times placing second, out of however many matches it is from Plat 1 to GC with like 5 total losses along the way.
I will say though, since reaching GC I've noticed a huge change in the amount of times I place second. I won't assign it a percentage at the risk of being called a liar for not doing the exact math, but if I had this same rate of 1st/2nd placement in the VT as I'm having now, I probably wouldn't even question it.
I am not being pedantic, its an issue that was noticed about 3 or 4 days ago by many people that kept on playing without collecting proof, that's my point.
How many people need to make the claim before you accept it?
I suggest you go read about the Mandela effect and groupthink
I am well aware people aren't always reliable and a large number of people saying something doesn't make it true. That being said, you can't just dismiss something because you haven't actually seen it yourself
You can't claim to have been "tracking" 100+ matches and then show the last 6 as proof. Report a bug on 'it happened to me trust me", come on...
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.
This is dumb math, if I am picking first 90% of the time, it doesn’t mean someone picking second 10% because I’m not fighting the same person over and over
Its not 1 person. And dumb math is getting to pick 2nd 1 time out of 100 and calling it 90-95%
Honestly it feels like you're just being ridiculous pedantic about this.
Yes, we all understand that 1/100 is not 90-95%. That doesn't change the fact that many of us (myself included) are placing first at a rate that is NOT the 50/50 were being told we have to do so. I can't give an exact % for myself, but during my VT climb I can say I remember 3 times placing second, out of however many matches it is from Plat 1 to GC with like 5 total losses along the way.
I will say though, since reaching GC I've noticed a huge change in the amount of times I place second. I won't assign it a percentage at the risk of being called a liar for not doing the exact math, but if I had this same rate of 1st/2nd placement in the VT as I'm having now, I probably wouldn't even question it.
I am not being pedantic, its an issue that was noticed about 3 or 4 days ago by many people that kept on playing without collecting proof, that's my point.
How many people need to make the claim before you accept it?
You tell me? 5, 10, 15 that only said 'it happened to me" out of thousands of players, and all of them tracked and kept count but didn't bother taking screenshots ...
@Stature Is your complaint that BG order selection is not random or BG order selection is not fair?
Random selection would follow a binomial distribution curve. There is a 1/64 chance of going first six games in a row. In the scope of GC player base, this would affect an average of 132 of the people that are at uru 2 tier (top 8500 players) or higher. Additionally we have a tendency towards a negativity bias, where we will remember the adverse outcomes disproportionate to the beneficial outcomes. This is mainly why other posters are requesting more examples so that we aren’t accidentally screening out the times where players placed 2nd.
Additionally a random selection is pretty simple to code. The game would generate a random number, and if it is even player A would go first and if it is odd player B would go first.
If you are saying that bg selection is random, but not fair, that is a whole different discussion.
For those who pick 1st "all the time" what are the constants in these matches? Meaning, do you take a long time to pick bans or are you always the lower roster? There may actually be a deciding factor but most aren't giving any info on how to determine it so it just comes across as complaining.
For those who pick 1st "all the time" what are the constants in these matches? Meaning, do you take a long time to pick bans or are you always the lower roster? There may actually be a deciding factor but most aren't giving any info on how to determine it so it just comes across as complaining.
I couldn't figure out a constant if there was one. I hit the accept button quickly, slowly, super last minute...didn't seem to matter. I banned players quickly, slowly, letting the timer completely run out...didn't seem to matter. I won matches, I lost matches (not on purpose...I'm just not that good)...didn't seem to matter. It happened all the way through Victory Track. I had winning and losing streaks, I had weaker and stronger rosters...every single match for 11 days I picked first*.
I finally got to pick second in GC yesterday. I don't know if the randomness bug is still there. I'm not very into BG, I was just collecting the deathless thing.
So unless there is some constant seed data being used...like my in-game name, or geo-location, or general hero rating, I don't know how the "randomness" can be this wonky.
*"no cap" as the kids say, but there will be disagrees nonetheless.
Comments
And it's not like it's a difficult bug to confirm. You don't need a video capturing it like with AI or Input bugs. Pick/placing order is definitely recorded on the servers. Just pull up the match history of the 4-5 people who's reporting this problem and it should be trivial to check if they've gone 50-100 matches going second only once as claimed.
The team could resolve this conversation in 5 minutes if they wanted. Why not just make a statement confirming/denying this?
Yes, we all understand that 1/100 is not 90-95%. That doesn't change the fact that many of us (myself included) are placing first at a rate that is NOT the 50/50 were being told we have to do so. I can't give an exact % for myself, but during my VT climb I can say I remember 3 times placing second, out of however many matches it is from Plat 1 to GC with like 5 total losses along the way.
I will say though, since reaching GC I've noticed a huge change in the amount of times I place second. I won't assign it a percentage at the risk of being called a liar for not doing the exact math, but if I had this same rate of 1st/2nd placement in the VT as I'm having now, I probably wouldn't even question it.
So many fights I've lost because I pick let's say peni first, so the opponent instantly gets galan, so I lock in mystics, then the opponent instantly gets titania or torch. Or if by some chance I get second pick, they lock in a kingpin or Korg, and I just get champs that get dunked on by them. RNG Drafting is stupid when the game can conveniently leave out counters to your opposing deck. When it leaves out Wiccan or Torch but it's like, oh, you want regular ironman 4 times, here you go.
My advice would be to build your deck with versatile champions and not think about perfect counters.
I just took out a Korg with Juggernaut quite successfully. Would love to always draft my rank 5 ascended Kitty Pryde but that's not how the game works.
BG encourages outside the box thinking and being able to work with what you've got. Those who can do that rise to top much faster
You still haven't answered how you know you would have won 8-10 more matches if you would have picked 2nd.
Played six games today, here are the screenshots, followed by match history and updated points. Picked first all six times.
Match history:
BG solo points:
How many extra points have you got because of that? Can you prove you would have won all the matches you have won so far if you had been locked into placing first?
You are the one who claims BG is a competition. You and I are in the same competition, but you are advocating that I should have a structural disadvantage relative to you in this competition.
If its a bug, open a ticket with the proof you show here.
BG is a competition, and you happen to be caught in a bug, it doesnt stop being a competition because of that. Does soccer stop being a sport because of the betting scandals?.. The problem I have is that you mixed every argument there was about BGs into a "bug" that you tracked over 100 matches and the only proof comes up from today..
Sorry if I was skeptical; but you gave me every right to be.
You don't seem to be at any disadvantage. I fail to see the problem that you claim to have.
I don't have answers for you for your questions because I don't track whether I pick first or not. I also don't try and convince myself that I would have done better if I would have picked second. If I lose, I lost because I wasn't better than my opponent for the current fight.
Report a bug on 'it happened to me trust me", come on...
Random selection would follow a binomial distribution curve. There is a 1/64 chance of going first six games in a row. In the scope of GC player base, this would affect an average of 132 of the people that are at uru 2 tier (top 8500 players) or higher. Additionally we have a tendency towards a negativity bias, where we will remember the adverse outcomes disproportionate to the beneficial outcomes. This is mainly why other posters are requesting more examples so that we aren’t accidentally screening out the times where players placed 2nd.
Additionally a random selection is pretty simple to code. The game would generate a random number, and if it is even player A would go first and if it is odd player B would go first.
If you are saying that bg selection is random, but not fair, that is a whole different discussion.
I finally got to pick second in GC yesterday. I don't know if the randomness bug is still there. I'm not very into BG, I was just collecting the deathless thing.
So unless there is some constant seed data being used...like my in-game name, or geo-location, or general hero rating, I don't know how the "randomness" can be this wonky.
*"no cap" as the kids say, but there will be disagrees nonetheless.