AGAIN, show me how many losses you have because you picked 1st.
I have precisely spelled out what the disadvantage is. It is the one of information during the drafting and placing stage. It is hardly a difficult concept to understand, after 12 seasons of BG.
I've picked first all my matches, I've won some and I've lost some. Playing all matches at a disadvantage. Why is it inconceivable that some of those matches were influenced by the information mis-match between picking 1st?
A lot of people would have taken you serious if the post was Title: Bug in drafting order "i have experiences a lot of matches where I have to pick first.. A LOT, here are screenshots to prove it"
You decided to go on a different route attacking other subjects, hinting a conspitacy theory of preferential treatment toward some accounts, and even saying "the people on GC always pick first and are quiet about it wah wah"...
Preferential treatment is miles away from a bug. Preferential treatment suggests its intentional that's why I used the term Blacklist before. Your approach was really salty, with comments like "the people picking second are probably in GC and staying quiet" as if they were exploiting something. All you needed to do is have screenshots, have proof so it would raise flags. Claiming you have been tracking and showing the last 6 matches (which are proof and now you can open a ticket properly) made me skeptical. You approach was not to ask the investigation of a bug, it was to disqualify BG, and hinting intentional disadvantage toward yourself and a few others.
That bug is a permanent handicap. I have multiple times asked for just an acknowledgement of the bug, let alone a timeline to fix it. I don't recall asking for anything else.
You've seen the reaction to the proof.
I haven't disqualified BG. I only said that the people who pile on others using "BG is a competition" trope are least interested in BG being a competition. That is miles away from disqualifying BG.
If its a BUG its bot preferential treatmean or a permanent handicap ITS A BUG, that you talked about DAYS and got proof for TODAY. Look at the title and tell me its not salty? You use a single bug to talk about the "Charades" BGs are a competition, you were affected by a bug, I am sorry you were affected; but make up your mind, is it preferential treatment or is it a bug? As I said before preferential treatment id intentional, a bug is not
Of course I'm salty, just like you were sceptical. I have every right to be after going through an entire season of this. As for the title, at least it has created awareness of what is happening.
The bug results in a preferential treatment, right? No one who is at the receiving end of this is going to get any extra points for being at a disadvantage for the whole season. This is not bug which makes champs look a bit shinier or change the color scheme. Neither does it affect everyone equally or randomly. It's a bug which affects where everyone places in the event. How would you define that?
I literally haven't noticed that how many times I am choosing the defender first. But i will start notice that. Kabam is not personally helping some summoners. Don't think so much take it as a game. Just try to win if you are not able to win then try harder.
Second no game is perfect. Every game has some minor bugs. All are equally facing the same issues which you are facing but kabam is trying to resolve those issues.
It kinda seems i and taking kabam's side. I am a developer I can understand how these things run in background. So just play and enjoy the game.
AGAIN, show me how many losses you have because you picked 1st.
I have precisely spelled out what the disadvantage is. It is the one of information during the drafting and placing stage. It is hardly a difficult concept to understand, after 12 seasons of BG.
I've picked first all my matches, I've won some and I've lost some. Playing all matches at a disadvantage. Why is it inconceivable that some of those matches were influenced by the information mis-match between picking 1st?
A lot of people would have taken you serious if the post was Title: Bug in drafting order "i have experiences a lot of matches where I have to pick first.. A LOT, here are screenshots to prove it"
You decided to go on a different route attacking other subjects, hinting a conspitacy theory of preferential treatment toward some accounts, and even saying "the people on GC always pick first and are quiet about it wah wah"...
Well there are posts like that but they never get attention. Say what you like but over the top hyperbole keeps the thread going.
A lot of people would have taken you serious if the post was Title: Bug in drafting order "i have experiences a lot of matches where I have to pick first.. A LOT, here are screenshots to prove it"
I don't know why you believe this. Literally the reaction to screenshots in this thread have been direct personal attacks.
You might be willing to have a reasonable discussion but not a lot are.
There are posts about bug in drafting order for a couple of weeks now. They are all dead.
It took this thread for even DNA to indicate that a bug exists. A week ago I directly tagged them and asked for a opinion (they had mentioned this as a possibility in a comment probably a month or two ago). There was no reply. You can go back and check my comments.
We still don't have an acknowledgement from the team.
Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
Actually, when the random event is a coinflip, 100 events is a plenty large sample size to gauge the shape of the probability distribution.
Take my own experience. I would estimate I've gone 40 matches picking first every single time. If the odds on any given match are truly 50/50, then the odds of my streak would be 1 in 2^40, which is less than 1 in a TRILLION.
That would mean, if a billion people on this planet each had a thousand accounts, ONE of those accounts for ONE of those people would see that streak, if the odds were indeed 50/50.
Given that at least a dozen people on this forum have complained about this issue, we can conclude definitively that the selection odds are not truly 50/50 - at least, not for those of us affected by this bug.
You've yet to prove that there is anything actually wrong with the system.
Kabam has stated that the selection order is supposed to be random. For some folks, it is clearly not random. That is something wrong with the system.
Yet that still doesn't prove it's bugged. Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
The odds of that sequence occurring is so small that in a actually random system, if you simulated a quadrillion matches a quadrillion times you would have maybe sequences like that. We've had a few million matches at best.
Forget a hundred, a sequence of 40 matches picking 1st straight is enough to prove the system isn't random.
Do people actually think kabam has some kind of complicated algorithm used to determine who will pick first? I'd be willing to bet it's either done at random or person with the highest prestige goes first. It could be based on something like an account ID# but that would be unlikely and unwise.
A lot of people would have taken you serious if the post was Title: Bug in drafting order "i have experiences a lot of matches where I have to pick first.. A LOT, here are screenshots to prove it"
I don't know why you believe this. Literally the reaction to screenshots in this thread have been direct personal attacks.
You might be willing to have a reasonable discussion but not a lot are.
There are posts about bug in drafting order for a couple of weeks now. They are all dead.
It took this thread for even DNA to indicate that a bug exists. A week ago I directly tagged them and asked for a opinion (they had mentioned this as a possibility in a comment probably a month or two ago). There was no reply. You can go back and check my comments.
We still don't have an acknowledgement from the team.
Because there was a lot of talk and no proof. I have been following this type of threads since the day that they appeared, not one person had proof other than "Yeah it happened to me too". Just now today you show proof of it. Its like taking a death on war and saying "oh my cat jumped on my lap" , well do we have proof of it? No, therefore I can be skeptical. Now you have proof, keep on taking screenshots compile it into a ticket and make them know WITH PROOF. Not with a theory of preferetial treatment toward other players. I am not calling you a liar of that's what you are wondering; but you are using a Bug to justify other unrelated subjects on BGs and calling them charades.
You've yet to prove that there is anything actually wrong with the system.
Kabam has stated that the selection order is supposed to be random. For some folks, it is clearly not random. That is something wrong with the system.
Yet that still doesn't prove it's bugged. Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
If people want to continue to argue the random thing, I'm not going to stop them, however if what I have to say about it makes a difference to anyone, I'll just say here that:
a) I haven't seen enough evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a bug.
HOWEVER
b) I have seen enough evidence to suggest that something squirrelly is going on, sufficient to justify further investigation, given my understanding of what's statistically reasonable.
I think, given what I have seen and what other people have reported, that this is where it is at for me. No absolute proof, but enough to not just be the same old people don't understand random thing. I think the best path forward is for everyone sufficiently interested, on both sides, to try to see if they can collect evidence that would shift the needle one way or the other. Because the people saying there's no absolute proof are correct, but the people saying it looks sus are also right, in my opinion. That's kind of rare on the forums, but here we are.
You've yet to prove that there is anything actually wrong with the system.
Kabam has stated that the selection order is supposed to be random. For some folks, it is clearly not random. That is something wrong with the system.
Yet that still doesn't prove it's bugged. Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
If people want to continue to argue the random thing, I'm not going to stop them, however if what I have to say about it makes a difference to anyone, I'll just say here that:
a) I haven't seen enough evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a bug.
HOWEVER
b) I have seen enough evidence to suggest that something squirrelly is going on, sufficient to justify further investigation, given my understanding of what's statistically reasonable.
I think, given what I have seen and what other people have reported, that this is where it is at for me. No absolute proof, but enough to not just be the same old people don't understand random thing. I think the best path forward is for everyone sufficiently interested, on both sides, to try to see if they can collect evidence that would shift the needle one way or the other. Because the people saying there's no absolute proof are correct, but the people saying it looks sus are also right, in my opinion. That's kind of rare on the forums, but here we are.
There are 1000s of hours or Arena streams in YouTube. It has NEVER happened. Now of course this doesn't mean that the 30 people in this thread who claim they pick 1st 99-100% of the time over 100s of matches haven't.
I also find it amusing that it's only happening to people who can't get out of victory track. It's not happening to beroman, or karate mike, lagacy, kt1, or Vega. And before the argument of "I'm only stuck in victory track because I picked first 500 times in a row" I guarantee you every person who has video evidence of this not happening listed above would still be in gc.
I think, given what I have seen and what other people have reported, that this is where it is at for me. No absolute proof, but enough to not just be the same old people don't understand random thing. I think the best path forward is for everyone sufficiently interested, on both sides, to try to see if they can collect evidence that would shift the needle one way or the other. Because the people saying there's no absolute proof are correct, but the people saying it looks sus are also right, in my opinion. That's kind of rare on the forums, but here we are.
I feel like absolute proof does exist. I base that on statements made about what data is collected. From The War On Cheaters - November Edition, the following data is being audited: * Entering matches with weaker decks * Pausing to make your losing matches longer * Trying to fake effort while trying to lose * Any other form of manipulating your fight data * Losing a bunch of matches in a row at zero medals in order to skew the data * Losing with medals below the threshold that would actually promote you
Based on this, it feels more likely than not that draft order is also audited. If Kabam was interested in making an absolute case, probably they could. I, and possibly others, have filed support tickets indicating a problem. I've been told by Kabam that this is random and working. This leaves me with the impression that they aren't interested in identifying a root cause, or even the existence of a problem.
There have been several threads on this over the past week. Not just on weekends but during normal business hours. I have yet to see an admin response on any of them, or shut down discourse. For some reason, these threads are all being left to fester, with the community crapping on each other and everyone getting just a little bit saltier.
I don't think there is a conspiracy. I don't think that some class of player is being given preferential treatment. But I do think Kabam has the data to identify whether or not they think this is a problem. And I think, in lieu of any acknowledgement on support tickets, the forum admins have the ability to manage the discourse with even a simple, "we're looking into this." A Nick Fury issue gets immediate traction. This gets crickets.
I also find it amusing that it's only happening to people who can't get out of victory track. It's not happening to beroman, or karate mike, lagacy, kt1, or Vega.
It happened to me through my entire vt campaign this season, and i made it to gc. Interestingly, now that i am in gc, i am picking second half the time.
The first time i finally picked 2nd, I was so used to picking first, I just instinctively tried to "draft" my opponent's champ a couple times before realizing what whas happening.
I’ve picked first in the majority of my match ups every season and I’ve had no problem reaching GC within a week or so. In fact I find it to be more advantageous than picking second but maybe that’s just my experience. It’s not like I’m a super skilled player with a stacked deck in fact no matter how hard I push I can’t get past arcane in GC. Ijs picking first hasn’t been a real hinderance to me
You've yet to prove that there is anything actually wrong with the system.
Kabam has stated that the selection order is supposed to be random. For some folks, it is clearly not random. That is something wrong with the system.
Yet that still doesn't prove it's bugged. Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
If people want to continue to argue the random thing, I'm not going to stop them, however if what I have to say about it makes a difference to anyone, I'll just say here that:
a) I haven't seen enough evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a bug.
HOWEVER
b) I have seen enough evidence to suggest that something squirrelly is going on, sufficient to justify further investigation, given my understanding of what's statistically reasonable.
I think, given what I have seen and what other people have reported, that this is where it is at for me. No absolute proof, but enough to not just be the same old people don't understand random thing. I think the best path forward is for everyone sufficiently interested, on both sides, to try to see if they can collect evidence that would shift the needle one way or the other. Because the people saying there's no absolute proof are correct, but the people saying it looks sus are also right, in my opinion. That's kind of rare on the forums, but here we are.
There are 1000s of hours or Arena streams in YouTube. It has NEVER happened. Now of course this doesn't mean that the 30 people in this thread who claim they pick 1st 99-100% of the time over 100s of matches haven't.
I also find it amusing that it's only happening to people who can't get out of victory track. It's not happening to beroman, or karate mike, lagacy, kt1, or Vega. And before the argument of "I'm only stuck in victory track because I picked first 500 times in a row" I guarantee you every person who has video evidence of this not happening listed above would still be in gc.
I also find it amusing that it's only happening to people who can't get out of victory track. It's not happening to beroman, or karate mike, lagacy, kt1, or Vega. And before the argument of "I'm only stuck in victory track because I picked first 500 times in a row" I guarantee you every person who has video evidence of this not happening listed above would still be in gc.
I'm out of VT. And I experienced this problem.
It's only "happening" to a small sample of people in the forum so it's not real. And it's not happening to a small sampling of people in YouTubez so it's not real.
I also find it amusing that it's only happening to people who can't get out of victory track. It's not happening to beroman, or karate mike, lagacy, kt1, or Vega.
It happened to me through my entire vt campaign this season, and i made it to gc. Interestingly, now that i am in gc, i am picking second half the time.
The first time i finally picked 2nd, I was so used to picking first, I just instinctively tried to "draft" my opponent's champ a couple times before realizing what whas happening.
Same here. I made GC yesterday and now I seem to be picking first about 50% of the time
In another post a player said that if your initial match making failed the systems tries again with a less restrictive range. If that happens you pick first.
I went from P3 to GC and only picked 2nd once. My match making in the VT took 10-11 seconds, when I picked 2nd it took only 5 seconds so what that other player says fits that result.
My hypothesis is this * The initial match making uses the player region as an input * Players in less crowded regions can't find a match * Match making continue without region being a factor * As per the initial sentence, the player then picks first
So players who always pick first * What's your typical match making time? (P2+ in VT) * What region are you in?
And players who don't always pick first * What's your typical match making time? (P2+ in VT)
You've yet to prove that there is anything actually wrong with the system.
Kabam has stated that the selection order is supposed to be random. For some folks, it is clearly not random. That is something wrong with the system.
Yet that still doesn't prove it's bugged. Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
If people want to continue to argue the random thing, I'm not going to stop them, however if what I have to say about it makes a difference to anyone, I'll just say here that:
a) I haven't seen enough evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a bug.
HOWEVER
b) I have seen enough evidence to suggest that something squirrelly is going on, sufficient to justify further investigation, given my understanding of what's statistically reasonable.
I think, given what I have seen and what other people have reported, that this is where it is at for me. No absolute proof, but enough to not just be the same old people don't understand random thing. I think the best path forward is for everyone sufficiently interested, on both sides, to try to see if they can collect evidence that would shift the needle one way or the other. Because the people saying there's no absolute proof are correct, but the people saying it looks sus are also right, in my opinion. That's kind of rare on the forums, but here we are.
There are 1000s of hours or Arena streams in YouTube. It has NEVER happened.
Actually, it happened to me last season, and a pretty big stretch of this season. However, that is both anecdotal and I wasn't carefully recording the data, which is why I'm going to do so next season across multiple accounts. I would say assuming my memory and perceptions are accurate, the probability that what I was was completely random was about one in fifty thousand last season and about one in a hundred thousand this season. Not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but enough to make me want to look closer.
(And before someone considers the possibility that I only calculated the odds of the streaks of choice embedded within the season as a whole, no, I didn't do that: I estimated the probability of those streaks occurring within an entire season of otherwise random selections).
Also, this very issue was reported to the devs I think two seasons ago *with* video evidence. I did not investigate closely then, but there was apparently objective evidence of a potential issue that did not rely upon anecdotal reporting. I don't have pointers to that, nor do I think I should repost reports not my own.
I also find it amusing that it's only happening to people who can't get out of victory track. It's not happening to beroman, or karate mike, lagacy, kt1, or Vega. And before the argument of "I'm only stuck in victory track because I picked first 500 times in a row" I guarantee you every person who has video evidence of this not happening listed above would still be in gc.
I'm out of VT. And I experienced this problem.
It's only "happening" to a small sample of people in the forum so it's not real. And it's not happening to a small sampling of people in YouTubez so it's not real.
There's also a Denis Leary song that describes your approach to Internet discourse. I'll leave it at that.
1000s of hours of video evidence versus a few people complaining that it is happening with zero evidence... I think you need to read that article again friend.
I also find it amusing that it's only happening to people who can't get out of victory track. It's not happening to beroman, or karate mike, lagacy, kt1, or Vega. And before the argument of "I'm only stuck in victory track because I picked first 500 times in a row" I guarantee you every person who has video evidence of this not happening listed above would still be in gc.
I'm out of VT. And I experienced this problem.
It's only "happening" to a small sample of people in the forum so it's not real. And it's not happening to a small sampling of people in YouTubez so it's not real.
There's also a Denis Leary song that describes your approach to Internet discourse. I'll leave it at that.
1000s of hours of video evidence versus a few people complaining that it is happening with zero evidence... I think you need to read that article again friend.
Just out of curiosity, how much of those thousands of hours of BG streaming have you analyzed statistically? When I used to say that there was thousands of crystal openings online that disprove most crystal conspiracy theories, that's because I actually analyzed tens of thousands of them. I didn't just point to them, I could specifically state what they said. In fact, I actually found a strange just slightly too often doubles correlation in all that data that I could never quite pin down, which is why I used to state that the only evidence for statistical anomaly in crystals was an extremely slight chance to duplicate a drop in consecutive crystals. But it was too small an effect to ever conclude was happening beyond the realm of random chance.
Also, another word of caution. When Kabam changed match making away from deck matching, many people concluded that they were matching by prestige. They thought they had conclusive evidence of this. And in fact, they did have strong correlations between prestige and match in their data. The problem was I had completely ruled out prestige matching from my own data beyond all doubt. How did this happen? Because Kabam implemented a roster strength matching metric that very strongly correlated to prestige most of the time. However, players who didn't rank up similar to statistical averages could find their roster strength diverging from their prestige by a substantial margin. Like, for example, me. Back then, my roster was almost anti-prestige: my prestige was far lower than average for someone of similar overall roster strength. So I was matching against players with much higher prestige 85% of the time. Because I just happened to be a weird corner case.
It is possible that the thing that is causing the draft anomalies is roughly equal for most players, so there's no overall net effect. But some players, at some times, find themselves in a temporary situation where they are unbalanced by this thing, and then start getting weird results. I'm not saying that is definitely happening, but it could be and that's why caution is necessary here.
I should point out that most people think the match maker itself is 100% roster based until P2, and then 100% random above P2. However, I'm pretty sure that's also wrong. I don't think the match maker is ever 100% random. It shifts dramatically to appear mostly random above P3, but I don't think it simply goes completely random. If match making is not 100% random, it is possible that draft order is also not 100% random, but who you match against might influence this, making some people who seem to get what appears to be 100% random matches also get 100% random draft order, but other players who see less than 100% random matches (and this is not easy to distinguish) might also be getting less than 100% draft order as well. Maybe.
1000s of hours of video evidence versus a few people complaining that it is happening with zero evidence... I think you need to read that article again friend.
Imma need you to post those 1000s of hours of proof. Otherwise you're just making claims. Is it 1000 hours, or is it 1952 hours? It seems suspect that your proof had such round numbers. Odd that only the people in GC know about this video "evidence"
1000s of hours of video evidence versus a few people complaining that it is happening with zero evidence... I think you need to read that article again friend.
Imma need you to post those 1000s of hours of proof. Otherwise you're just making claims. Is it 1000 hours, or is it 1952 hours? It seems suspect that your proof had such round numbers. Odd that only the people in GC know about this video "evidence"
1000s. Not a round number. Multiple thousands. I suggest you take a basic math class. You can pour over the evidence yourself. Go ahead and start with kt1 almost daily streams for the last year. That will be hundreds of hours (also not a round number). When you are finished I'll give you the next block of data for you to examine.
Go ahead and start with kt1 almost daily streams for the last year. That will be hundreds of hours (also not a round number). When you are finished I'll give you the next block of data for you to examine.
I just checked. There are about 2 hours of streaming from KT1 that are: from this season, in VT. Both of those parameters have been previously mentioned in these threads.
So your evidence is no better than anyone else's. Worse, you've misrepresented it by a factor of hundreds (a roundish number). And you've overrepresented your small sample of players without the problem as somehow statistically more significant than the small sample of players with the problem. There number of hours isn't relevant. The number of players is.
I don't need the next "block of data". It really has little to do with the discussion that everyone else is having around your noise.
Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
Actually, when the random event is a coinflip, 100 events is a plenty large sample size to gauge the shape of the probability distribution.
Take my own experience. I would estimate I've gone 40 matches picking first every single time. If the odds on any given match are truly 50/50, then the odds of my streak would be 1 in 2^40, which is less than 1 in a TRILLION.
That would mean, if a billion people on this planet each had a thousand accounts, ONE of those accounts for ONE of those people would see that streak, if the odds were indeed 50/50.
Given that at least a dozen people on this forum have complained about this issue, we can conclude definitively that the selection odds are not truly 50/50 - at least, not for those of us affected by this bug.
100 out of the thousands and thousands of matches is not a "plenty large sample size". You need to review how stats work.
You've yet to prove that there is anything actually wrong with the system.
Kabam has stated that the selection order is supposed to be random. For some folks, it is clearly not random. That is something wrong with the system.
Yet that still doesn't prove it's bugged. Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
If people want to continue to argue the random thing, I'm not going to stop them, however if what I have to say about it makes a difference to anyone, I'll just say here that:
a) I haven't seen enough evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a bug.
HOWEVER
b) I have seen enough evidence to suggest that something squirrelly is going on, sufficient to justify further investigation, given my understanding of what's statistically reasonable.
I think, given what I have seen and what other people have reported, that this is where it is at for me. No absolute proof, but enough to not just be the same old people don't understand random thing. I think the best path forward is for everyone sufficiently interested, on both sides, to try to see if they can collect evidence that would shift the needle one way or the other. Because the people saying there's no absolute proof are correct, but the people saying it looks sus are also right, in my opinion. That's kind of rare on the forums, but here we are.
IMO, there is a deciding factor that Kabam isn't telling us mostly because the people complaining about picking 1st are also complaining about having to fight rosters that are much bigger than theirs.
Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
Actually, when the random event is a coinflip, 100 events is a plenty large sample size to gauge the shape of the probability distribution.
Take my own experience. I would estimate I've gone 40 matches picking first every single time. If the odds on any given match are truly 50/50, then the odds of my streak would be 1 in 2^40, which is less than 1 in a TRILLION.
That would mean, if a billion people on this planet each had a thousand accounts, ONE of those accounts for ONE of those people would see that streak, if the odds were indeed 50/50.
Given that at least a dozen people on this forum have complained about this issue, we can conclude definitively that the selection odds are not truly 50/50 - at least, not for those of us affected by this bug.
100 out of the thousands and thousands of matches is not a "plenty large sample size". You need to review how stats work.
I genuinely wish I had your confidence of making assertions on topics you are clearly ignorant about. Though I feel you are going a bit soft considering you didn't just waltz in with your trademark "Wrong." comment. Never change.
That said, you could have just read the three sentences which explained why 100 coinflips in a particular sequence can demonstrate bias and saved yourself the trouble.
You've yet to prove that there is anything actually wrong with the system.
Kabam has stated that the selection order is supposed to be random. For some folks, it is clearly not random. That is something wrong with the system.
Yet that still doesn't prove it's bugged. Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
If people want to continue to argue the random thing, I'm not going to stop them, however if what I have to say about it makes a difference to anyone, I'll just say here that:
a) I haven't seen enough evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a bug.
HOWEVER
b) I have seen enough evidence to suggest that something squirrelly is going on, sufficient to justify further investigation, given my understanding of what's statistically reasonable.
I think, given what I have seen and what other people have reported, that this is where it is at for me. No absolute proof, but enough to not just be the same old people don't understand random thing. I think the best path forward is for everyone sufficiently interested, on both sides, to try to see if they can collect evidence that would shift the needle one way or the other. Because the people saying there's no absolute proof are correct, but the people saying it looks sus are also right, in my opinion. That's kind of rare on the forums, but here we are.
IMO, there is a deciding factor that Kabam isn't telling us mostly because the people complaining about picking 1st are also complaining about having to fight rosters that are much bigger than theirs.
You're on a roll. Please point me to one post where I have complained about having to fight rosters which are bigger than mine?
Some folks picking first mostly and some picking second mostly is still a random system overall. Your ~100 matches is way too small of a sample size to prove anything.
Actually, when the random event is a coinflip, 100 events is a plenty large sample size to gauge the shape of the probability distribution.
Take my own experience. I would estimate I've gone 40 matches picking first every single time. If the odds on any given match are truly 50/50, then the odds of my streak would be 1 in 2^40, which is less than 1 in a TRILLION.
That would mean, if a billion people on this planet each had a thousand accounts, ONE of those accounts for ONE of those people would see that streak, if the odds were indeed 50/50.
Given that at least a dozen people on this forum have complained about this issue, we can conclude definitively that the selection odds are not truly 50/50 - at least, not for those of us affected by this bug.
100 out of the thousands and thousands of matches is not a "plenty large sample size". You need to review how stats work.
I genuinely wish I had your confidence of making assertions on topics you are clearly ignorant about. Though I feel you are going a bit soft considering you didn't just waltz in with your trademark "Wrong." comment. Never change.
That said, you could have just read the three sentences which explained why 100 coinflips in a particular sequence can demonstrate bias and saved yourself the trouble.
Unfortunately MCoC's RNG does not work like a "coinflip", its similar to the RNG of a slot machine. It resets the previous result and makes every result a "new one", I understand that being a 50/50 chance makes it hard to believe; but its as if you were stuck on "groundhog's day". Coinflip stats are based on the result of previous flips. An example (not the greatest) would be the crystal % RNG, opening exactly 100 crystals does not ensure a result since the % is based on each crystal.
Comments
Title: Bug in drafting order
"i have experiences a lot of matches where I have to pick first.. A LOT, here are screenshots to prove it"
You decided to go on a different route attacking other subjects, hinting a conspitacy theory of preferential treatment toward some accounts, and even saying "the people on GC always pick first and are quiet about it wah wah"...
The bug results in a preferential treatment, right? No one who is at the receiving end of this is going to get any extra points for being at a disadvantage for the whole season. This is not bug which makes champs look a bit shinier or change the color scheme. Neither does it affect everyone equally or randomly. It's a bug which affects where everyone places in the event. How would you define that?
Second no game is perfect. Every game has some minor bugs. All are equally facing the same issues which you are facing but kabam is trying to resolve those issues.
It kinda seems i and taking kabam's side. I am a developer I can understand how these things run in background. So just play and enjoy the game.
Say what you like but over the top hyperbole keeps the thread going.
You might be willing to have a reasonable discussion but not a lot are.
There are posts about bug in drafting order for a couple of weeks now. They are all dead.
It took this thread for even DNA to indicate that a bug exists. A week ago I directly tagged them and asked for a opinion (they had mentioned this as a possibility in a comment probably a month or two ago). There was no reply. You can go back and check my comments.
We still don't have an acknowledgement from the team.
Take my own experience. I would estimate I've gone 40 matches picking first every single time. If the odds on any given match are truly 50/50, then the odds of my streak would be 1 in 2^40, which is less than 1 in a TRILLION.
That would mean, if a billion people on this planet each had a thousand accounts, ONE of those accounts for ONE of those people would see that streak, if the odds were indeed 50/50.
Given that at least a dozen people on this forum have complained about this issue, we can conclude definitively that the selection odds are not truly 50/50 - at least, not for those of us affected by this bug.
Forget a hundred, a sequence of 40 matches picking 1st straight is enough to prove the system isn't random.
I have been following this type of threads since the day that they appeared, not one person had proof other than "Yeah it happened to me too". Just now today you show proof of it. Its like taking a death on war and saying "oh my cat jumped on my lap" , well do we have proof of it? No, therefore I can be skeptical. Now you have proof, keep on taking screenshots compile it into a ticket and make them know WITH PROOF. Not with a theory of preferetial treatment toward other players. I am not calling you a liar of that's what you are wondering; but you are using a Bug to justify other unrelated subjects on BGs and calling them charades.
a) I haven't seen enough evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a bug.
HOWEVER
b) I have seen enough evidence to suggest that something squirrelly is going on, sufficient to justify further investigation, given my understanding of what's statistically reasonable.
I think, given what I have seen and what other people have reported, that this is where it is at for me. No absolute proof, but enough to not just be the same old people don't understand random thing. I think the best path forward is for everyone sufficiently interested, on both sides, to try to see if they can collect evidence that would shift the needle one way or the other. Because the people saying there's no absolute proof are correct, but the people saying it looks sus are also right, in my opinion. That's kind of rare on the forums, but here we are.
I also find it amusing that it's only happening to people who can't get out of victory track. It's not happening to beroman, or karate mike, lagacy, kt1, or Vega. And before the argument of "I'm only stuck in victory track because I picked first 500 times in a row" I guarantee you every person who has video evidence of this not happening listed above would still be in gc.
* Entering matches with weaker decks
* Pausing to make your losing matches longer
* Trying to fake effort while trying to lose
* Any other form of manipulating your fight data
* Losing a bunch of matches in a row at zero medals in order to skew the data
* Losing with medals below the threshold that would actually promote you
Based on this, it feels more likely than not that draft order is also audited. If Kabam was interested in making an absolute case, probably they could. I, and possibly others, have filed support tickets indicating a problem. I've been told by Kabam that this is random and working. This leaves me with the impression that they aren't interested in identifying a root cause, or even the existence of a problem.
There have been several threads on this over the past week. Not just on weekends but during normal business hours. I have yet to see an admin response on any of them, or shut down discourse. For some reason, these threads are all being left to fester, with the community crapping on each other and everyone getting just a little bit saltier.
I don't think there is a conspiracy. I don't think that some class of player is being given preferential treatment. But I do think Kabam has the data to identify whether or not they think this is a problem. And I think, in lieu of any acknowledgement on support tickets, the forum admins have the ability to manage the discourse with even a simple, "we're looking into this." A Nick Fury issue gets immediate traction. This gets crickets.
The first time i finally picked 2nd, I was so used to picking first, I just instinctively tried to "draft" my opponent's champ a couple times before realizing what whas happening.
It's only "happening" to a small sample of people in the forum so it's not real. And it's not happening to a small sampling of people in YouTubez so it's not real.
May I present an explanation for the world you live in?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
There's also a Denis Leary song that describes your approach to Internet discourse. I'll leave it at that.
I went from P3 to GC and only picked 2nd once.
My match making in the VT took 10-11 seconds, when I picked 2nd it took only 5 seconds so what that other player says fits that result.
My hypothesis is this
* The initial match making uses the player region as an input
* Players in less crowded regions can't find a match
* Match making continue without region being a factor
* As per the initial sentence, the player then picks first
So players who always pick first
* What's your typical match making time? (P2+ in VT)
* What region are you in?
And players who don't always pick first
* What's your typical match making time? (P2+ in VT)
(And before someone considers the possibility that I only calculated the odds of the streaks of choice embedded within the season as a whole, no, I didn't do that: I estimated the probability of those streaks occurring within an entire season of otherwise random selections).
Also, this very issue was reported to the devs I think two seasons ago *with* video evidence. I did not investigate closely then, but there was apparently objective evidence of a potential issue that did not rely upon anecdotal reporting. I don't have pointers to that, nor do I think I should repost reports not my own.
Also, another word of caution. When Kabam changed match making away from deck matching, many people concluded that they were matching by prestige. They thought they had conclusive evidence of this. And in fact, they did have strong correlations between prestige and match in their data. The problem was I had completely ruled out prestige matching from my own data beyond all doubt. How did this happen? Because Kabam implemented a roster strength matching metric that very strongly correlated to prestige most of the time. However, players who didn't rank up similar to statistical averages could find their roster strength diverging from their prestige by a substantial margin. Like, for example, me. Back then, my roster was almost anti-prestige: my prestige was far lower than average for someone of similar overall roster strength. So I was matching against players with much higher prestige 85% of the time. Because I just happened to be a weird corner case.
It is possible that the thing that is causing the draft anomalies is roughly equal for most players, so there's no overall net effect. But some players, at some times, find themselves in a temporary situation where they are unbalanced by this thing, and then start getting weird results. I'm not saying that is definitely happening, but it could be and that's why caution is necessary here.
I should point out that most people think the match maker itself is 100% roster based until P2, and then 100% random above P2. However, I'm pretty sure that's also wrong. I don't think the match maker is ever 100% random. It shifts dramatically to appear mostly random above P3, but I don't think it simply goes completely random. If match making is not 100% random, it is possible that draft order is also not 100% random, but who you match against might influence this, making some people who seem to get what appears to be 100% random matches also get 100% random draft order, but other players who see less than 100% random matches (and this is not easy to distinguish) might also be getting less than 100% draft order as well. Maybe.
Imma need you to post those 1000s of hours of proof. Otherwise you're just making claims. Is it 1000 hours, or is it 1952 hours? It seems suspect that your proof had such round numbers. Odd that only the people in GC know about this video "evidence"
I just checked. There are about 2 hours of streaming from KT1 that are: from this season, in VT. Both of those parameters have been previously mentioned in these threads.
So your evidence is no better than anyone else's. Worse, you've misrepresented it by a factor of hundreds (a roundish number). And you've overrepresented your small sample of players without the problem as somehow statistically more significant than the small sample of players with the problem. There number of hours isn't relevant. The number of players is.
I don't need the next "block of data". It really has little to do with the discussion that everyone else is having around your noise.
That said, you could have just read the three sentences which explained why 100 coinflips in a particular sequence can demonstrate bias and saved yourself the trouble.
Coinflip stats are based on the result of previous flips. An example (not the greatest) would be the crystal % RNG, opening exactly 100 crystals does not ensure a result since the % is based on each crystal.