The Carrot and the Stick Battlegrounds algorithm hypothesis

General Discussion
1

As human beings, one of our strengths is recognizing patterns. Having played for 3 years, I’ve come to notice a particular pattern in Battlegrounds that I find very upsetting.

Every so often, I will spend a chunk of money and purchase 15,000 orbs. And as if by magic, suddenly I seem to be on the winning team in BGs for a full week and make good progess in my rank.

BUT… the following week, if I don’t spend, I will lose match after match. This has been occuring without exception for quite a while. It took some time before I clued into this idea but the pattern seems very evident now.

As proof of idea, I tried exactly what I’ve mentioned for the past 2 months. And without fail, when I buy substantially, I get really good win streaks for a week. When I don’t buy, I go on extended losing streaks that undo all my progress. I’ve heard of incentives to buy, but this seems a bit much for me.

I’m postulating that the matchmaking algorithm has a built-in function to punish players who don’t spend regularly. It’s not that it makes it impossible to get to legend. It just makes it that much more difficult to achieve the rank.

Anyone else notice this or am I just biasing my results to validate my hypothesis? If anyone else is in a position to test this idea, it would be great if they could share their observations.

2 Likes
2

I don’t spend money, except for some battle pass cosmetics sometimes, and I have an average 60%~63% win rate every season.

2 Likes
3

Correlation and causation are not synonyms. This is faulty logic, like a footballer’s “lucky socks”, i.e. he won three games wearing his red socks, so now he wears his red socks because he thinks they’ll make him more likely to win matches.

I have also been playing the game for three years. I am completely Free-To-Play. I haven’t spent a single penny on the game. I’m currently at Rank 14 Legend, with a 60% win rate. I’ve been Legend every season and my end of season win rate is always between 55-65%. If your postulation was correct, I should have had a never ending streak of losses due to a complete lack of purchases made.

4

Since both of you don’t spend, perhaps the algorithm treats obvious F2P differently. Or maybe it’s given up on you. Haha.

All joking aside, at times, real or imagined, it feels like the game deliberately plays against you. Just part of my frustration suppose. I’m still fodder for the whales.

1 Like
5

While it may be faulty logic, it is possible that it could be true, to some effect. As gamers, almost everyone has heard of RNG (Random Number Generator). RNG is use to create pseudo-random numbers in programming.

Once that number is created, anything can be done with it, before it is used in the game. You can generate a number or probability, and then use a second decision making process after that, or even several.

For instance, crests have a probability attached to them also random (RNG) gear drops. You could then check Paragon level, inventory, or anything else you want and change that probability by including an IF statement.

IF player is within 50 Paragon points of 900 THEN lower found gear by X. X being Combat Rating for instance.

Games are not regulated on their RNG like casinos are in the U.S., like Nevada Gaming Commission for instance. Gaming company’s CEOs are free to tell programmers whatever they want them to do.

I’m not saying all of this is being done, or that this directly applies to the OP’s hypothesis, I’m simply saying that the possibility exists.

At the end of the day, we all know that this is definitely a Pay-to-Play game, and the real decision makers will almost always choose profit over anything else.

6

If the hypothesis was true, how would you explain me getting to Legend every season, with 55-65% win rate at the end of the season, and having never spent anything on the game? If players who don’t spend were actually being thrown into losing teams, my results would tend to disprove the hypothesis, not confirm it.

7

The 13k reso whale should have a 100% win rate, but they didn’t for some reason.

8

After spending, you may have increase some stats on your character making it more powerfull than before.

Hence, the MM take a few games to adjust you internal score and match you with suitable adversaries that you probably can’t stomp as before your upgrade.

It would rather prove that the MM algorithm works as intended. Otherwise, you will stay in a lower bracket/lobby with easier game constantly.

The MM gives you challenges to improve your skills/level your gameplay with worthy opponents and maybe less worthy teammates :wink: (this is a way to avoid boredom).

9

I merely stated:

I agree with that but would think that the opposite would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.

I am trying to convey, perhaps not very well, that it is possible that they can change anything they want. For instance, it is entirely possible that they could implement some algorithm that if you spent a certain amount, then quit spending that amount, they then could make it so that you are in a worse matchmaking algorithm.

I am not saying that is happening, just that it is a possibility.

What I also would say is that the opposite does not necessarily have to be true. For instance, if you never spent any money, then the possible algorithm would not apply.

From my point of view, this can be proof that you may not have entered into the possible algorithm, since you have never spent anything.

I am by no means saying that the OP’s postulation is correct, again I am merely stating that part of it could be true. It is entirely possible for them to implement an algorithm that once you do spend, they then could make matchmaking worse as an incentive to keep on spending.

Simply put, the possibility exists programmatically. Programmatically, anything is possible.

This is part of what I am trying to state, and where I think both sides of this assumption do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.

I am not saying, in anyway, that any of this is happening or that this is what the OP was postulating. I am saying that literally anything is possible, programmatically.

I hope this makes my point clearer.

10

Yes, and I’m saying that it’s very unlikely as there’s no supporting evidence and there is contradictory evidence. It is still possible but currently this is very much the anecdotal “lucky socks” level of it could be.

11

Considering we can’t look at the algorithm, I certainly can’t say that manipulations exist or do not exist. All I’m certain of is that many times I feel the game is playing me rather than the other way around.

1 Like