Question About Battlegrounds (sorry if it has been asked before)

In regards to the bans. Anyone who has played, or a mod could probably answer. Do the bans cross rarity like they do in war? If my 6* R3 Fury gets banned, does a 5/65 get banned as well? It would be cool to be able to bring say, a 5 and a 6 star of a champ and only get one banned? Really just asking for my own mental preparation of my deck(s).

Thanks in advance!

Comments

pseudosane

In regards to the bans. Anyone who has played, or a mod could probably answer. Do the bans cross rarity like they do in war? If my 6* R3 Fury gets banned, does a 5/65 get banned as well? It would be cool to be able to bring say, a 5 and a 6 star of a champ and only get one banned? Really just asking for my own mental preparation of my deck(s).

Thanks in advance!

looks like it is per chaacter. so if nick is banned, all star levels are.

Wicket329

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.

Kabam Miike

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.

At the moment, this is correct! Only 1 rarity of a Champion at a time allowed in your Deck.

Colinwhitworth69

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.
At the moment, this is correct! Only 1 rarity of a Champion at a time allowed in your Deck.

That makes sense. Otherwise the bans would be far less effective.

Crys23

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.
At the moment, this is correct! Only 1 rarity of a Champion at a time allowed in your Deck.

I'm not sure I agree with this. On one hand, if none of the rarities get banned, fighting both the 6* and 5* of a difficult defender can be annoying. (Not sure anyone would draft both tho, given the chance)
But at the same time it's a bit punishing for people with massive rosters that have a champ as both 5* 5/65 and 6* 3/45 or even 4/55.

Maratox

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.
At the moment, this is correct! Only 1 rarity of a Champion at a time allowed in your Deck.
I'm not sure I agree with this. On one hand, if none of the rarities get banned, fighting both the 6* and 5* of a difficult defender can be annoying. (Not sure anyone would draft both tho, given the chance)
But at the same time it's a bit punishing for people with massive rosters that have a champ as both 5* 5/65 and 6* 3/45 or even 4/55.

If they have massive rosters then they’ll just use another champ that isn’t one of the three banned ones. It’s perfectly logical to ban all star levels of a champ otherwise bans would be useless. But it’s moot because you can only have one star rarity of a champ in your deck

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.
At the moment, this is correct! Only 1 rarity of a Champion at a time allowed in your Deck.
I'm not sure I agree with this. On one hand, if none of the rarities get banned, fighting both the 6* and 5* of a difficult defender can be annoying. (Not sure anyone would draft both tho, given the chance)
But at the same time it's a bit punishing for people with massive rosters that have a champ as both 5* 5/65 and 6* 3/45 or even 4/55.

Why? People with large rosters that have champs ranked as 5/65 and R2 and higher have the advantage that they can use one of those champs until they've exhausted their charges and then swap them in their deck for the other version and continue to basically use that same champ. The rarity limitation simply prevents them from placing both rarities into the deck at the same time, with the intent of potentially pulling them twice in one match or forcing their opponent to use two bans to strike both of them. It doesn't prevent the player from actually using both rarities in different matches.

Nemeschy

Thank you for the response @Kabam Miike ! I must have missed that in the streams I caught.

I am hoping all those barriers of entry that are currently there are altered or removed. I am hoping that they either give it its own energy, that you cannot buy refills for. Or give us "X" amount of ranked matches per day/week. Then unlimited for fun matches. People being able to just buy $10k worth of energy refills and shoot to the top of the leaderboard seems lame. I am a spender, and I think spenders should have an advantage, but not and unlimited number of matches for money kind of advantage. That's insane IMO.

Crys23

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.
At the moment, this is correct! Only 1 rarity of a Champion at a time allowed in your Deck.
I'm not sure I agree with this. On one hand, if none of the rarities get banned, fighting both the 6* and 5* of a difficult defender can be annoying. (Not sure anyone would draft both tho, given the chance)
But at the same time it's a bit punishing for people with massive rosters that have a champ as both 5* 5/65 and 6* 3/45 or even 4/55.
What? I had a stroke trying to figure out if you understand what miike is saying or if you don’t

Lol, hope you're ok now. I understood perfectly. It is a simple statement by Mike.
It is you who hasn't comprehended the full scenarios I offered. And I also havent commited either way. By the ammount of disagrees, it seems others also haven't gotten the point of my comment. Hope they didnt have any strokes.
All I wanted was a discussion, pros and cons. Convince me one way or the other. Silly of me to expect it from the "internet people"

Crys23

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.
At the moment, this is correct! Only 1 rarity of a Champion at a time allowed in your Deck.
I'm not sure I agree with this. On one hand, if none of the rarities get banned, fighting both the 6* and 5* of a difficult defender can be annoying. (Not sure anyone would draft both tho, given the chance)
But at the same time it's a bit punishing for people with massive rosters that have a champ as both 5* 5/65 and 6* 3/45 or even 4/55.
Why? People with large rosters that have champs ranked as 5/65 and R2 and higher have the advantage that they can use one of those champs until they've exhausted their charges and then swap them in their deck for the other version and continue to basically use that same champ. The rarity limitation simply prevents them from placing both rarities into the deck at the same time, with the intent of potentially pulling them twice in one match or forcing their opponent to use two bans to strike both of them. It doesn't prevent the player from actually using both rarities in different matches.

I see your reasoning. But I suspect that in competitive play, the number of matches per day/week will be limited. In that case, people will just refresh the 6*, spend a little bit to have highest rarity available. So the 5* will just "ride the bench".
Here's a hypotethical: my opponent has a great roster of mystic defenders and bans my 6* torch. Maybe I would still like the option to use the 5* torch. It's a risk for me, less attack, less block proficiency, less health, but still the best counter.
At the same time, if I ban someone's 6* Peni or Sauron, I dont want to fight the 5* either.
It hurts and it helps the player. Just wanted to start a conversation about which option others prefer. I myself dont know yet.

DNA3000

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.
At the moment, this is correct! Only 1 rarity of a Champion at a time allowed in your Deck.
I'm not sure I agree with this. On one hand, if none of the rarities get banned, fighting both the 6* and 5* of a difficult defender can be annoying. (Not sure anyone would draft both tho, given the chance)
But at the same time it's a bit punishing for people with massive rosters that have a champ as both 5* 5/65 and 6* 3/45 or even 4/55.
Why? People with large rosters that have champs ranked as 5/65 and R2 and higher have the advantage that they can use one of those champs until they've exhausted their charges and then swap them in their deck for the other version and continue to basically use that same champ. The rarity limitation simply prevents them from placing both rarities into the deck at the same time, with the intent of potentially pulling them twice in one match or forcing their opponent to use two bans to strike both of them. It doesn't prevent the player from actually using both rarities in different matches.
I see your reasoning. But I suspect that in competitive play, the number of matches per day/week will be limited. In that case, people will just refresh the 6*, spend a little bit to have highest rarity available. So the 5* will just "ride the bench".
Here's a hypotethical: my opponent has a great roster of mystic defenders and bans my 6* torch. Maybe I would still like the option to use the 5* torch. It's a risk for me, less attack, less block proficiency, less health, but still the best counter.
At the same time, if I ban someone's 6* Peni or Sauron, I dont want to fight the 5* either.
It hurts and it helps the player. Just wanted to start a conversation about which option others prefer. I myself dont know yet.

Keep in mind, that option isn't directly available. Your opponent bans from your deck: if the game allowed you to place both Torches into your deck, your opponent would still be able to ban them both. Furthermore, you still have to rely on luck of the draw to get either of them into your team.

Allowing multiple rarities means players with both can place them both into their decks, and place their opponent into a situation where they have to decide whether to burn two bans to ban them both. It gives a lot more power to players with larger rosters, because larger rosters allows players to stack their decks with tough defenders and exhaust opponent bans. It is less of an offensive weapon, because you still need random chance to pull them as attackers.

Crys23

As I understand it you can only put one rarity of a champ in your deck at a time. So you can’t bring both your 5* and 6* Nick Fury. I could be wrong on that, but I think one of the content creators mentioned it when they were streaming.
At the moment, this is correct! Only 1 rarity of a Champion at a time allowed in your Deck.
I'm not sure I agree with this. On one hand, if none of the rarities get banned, fighting both the 6* and 5* of a difficult defender can be annoying. (Not sure anyone would draft both tho, given the chance)
But at the same time it's a bit punishing for people with massive rosters that have a champ as both 5* 5/65 and 6* 3/45 or even 4/55.
Why? People with large rosters that have champs ranked as 5/65 and R2 and higher have the advantage that they can use one of those champs until they've exhausted their charges and then swap them in their deck for the other version and continue to basically use that same champ. The rarity limitation simply prevents them from placing both rarities into the deck at the same time, with the intent of potentially pulling them twice in one match or forcing their opponent to use two bans to strike both of them. It doesn't prevent the player from actually using both rarities in different matches.
I see your reasoning. But I suspect that in competitive play, the number of matches per day/week will be limited. In that case, people will just refresh the 6*, spend a little bit to have highest rarity available. So the 5* will just "ride the bench".
Here's a hypotethical: my opponent has a great roster of mystic defenders and bans my 6* torch. Maybe I would still like the option to use the 5* torch. It's a risk for me, less attack, less block proficiency, less health, but still the best counter.
At the same time, if I ban someone's 6* Peni or Sauron, I dont want to fight the 5* either.
It hurts and it helps the player. Just wanted to start a conversation about which option others prefer. I myself dont know yet.
Keep in mind, that option isn't directly available. Your opponent bans from your deck: if the game allowed you to place both Torches into your deck, your opponent would still be able to ban them both. Furthermore, you still have to rely on luck of the draw to get either of them into your team.

Allowing multiple rarities means players with both can place them both into their decks, and place their opponent into a situation where they have to decide whether to burn two bans to ban them both. It gives a lot more power to players with larger rosters, because larger rosters allows players to stack their decks with tough defenders and exhaust opponent bans. It is less of an offensive weapon, because you still need random chance to pull them as attackers.

I know, that is a point I forgot to mention: would me or my opponent burn 2 bans to remove both rarities? It's another aspect to the mode. Would I fight the 5* of one hard champ or the 6* of a lesser difficult champ? Which to ban, decisions, decisions. Yes, luck will be involved for the opportunity to draft them, but there's also a re-roll.
And in the end wont a lot of matches be determined by who has the largest roster? I mean, I have a decent 3mil, 30 r3s account and above average skill. But when I'll come up against the whales of this game with 60+ r3, I will be out matched on many occasions. I'll win some, but I'll also lose plenty just because of roster size.

DNA3000

Yes, luck will be involved for the opportunity to draft them, but there's also a re-roll.

Which is actually something many people have advocated for removing (draw re-rolls), because it allows whales to gain a significant competitive advantage in a part of the game mode that is explicitly intended to add some uncertainty to matches.

The way I put it in my feedback is that I believe when spending produces an advantage it should be a strategic advantage not a tactical advantage. Which is to say, it is one thing for big spenders to have an advantage going into a match, but they shouldn't be able to buy more advantages during the match. They should be playing the same game everyone else does, with the same options everyone else does.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

And in the end wont a lot of matches be determined by who has the largest roster? I mean, I have a decent 3mil, 30 r3s account and above average skill. But when I'll come up against the whales of this game with 60+ r3, I will be out matched on many occasions. I'll win some, but I'll also lose plenty just because of roster size.

I don't believe so. I mean, someone with a categorically overwhelming roster advantage is going to win pretty much every time. A player with 100 6* champs is not going to lose to player with nothing but 3* champs, obviously. But the difference between, say, 5* R5 and 6* R2 or even 6* r3 is not so overwhelming that skill doesn't matter. You still have to fight the fight. There is an advantage to be sure, but that advantage doesn't completely eliminate skill from being a factor.

It is less important how large a roster is, and more important which champs the player has ranked up that matters. And I think *most* players simply don't have the resources to rank up a massive deck of battleground-optimal champs, not even most spenders. Mega whales will have advantages in having saturated rosters full of ranked up champs, but a spender with twice the R3s as a free to play player will not, I think, have an insurmountable advantage.

Plus, this game mode will have two groups of players competing in it. The super competitors, and everyone else. Roster size will mean something for the super competitors, because everything will mean something to those players. The smallest edge will be enough to win. A warmer phone might be enough to lose. But for the rest of the playerbase, roster size will be just one factor in a large number of factors that no one will have fully optimized. You'll lose to players with big rosters some of the time, but you'll also win against players with big rosters when you outplay them some of the time.

When we're talking about the typical player and not say, the top tier players, large roster also comes with an interesting disadvantage. If you have a large roster, you're often able to bring optimal champs to every fight. Battlegrounds will take that away. You'll have to go with what you have. How many players with large rosters are constantly using suboptimal attacker choices just to learn how to use them, compared to players who use suboptimal choices because they have to. It isn't all roses for the players used to bringing their full roster to bear on content. I think many players will find that the matches will seem more '"random" than they expect because they will have trouble fighting certain defenders with only a few choices of attacker, but so will their opponents. Fights we think we're going to lose we will actually win because the opponent we're facing isn't used to fighting a fight we think should be easy, because they don't have their favorite option for that fight available.

I think that's going to be part of the fun. The uncertainty will mean more players will be in the fight more often than they think they would be, which will encourage them to try more. People will learn how few perfect players there really are.

Worknprogress

And in the end wont a lot of matches be determined by who has the largest roster? I mean, I have a decent 3mil, 30 r3s account and above average skill. But when I'll come up against the whales of this game with 60+ r3, I will be out matched on many occasions. I'll win some, but I'll also lose plenty just because of roster size.
I don't believe so. I mean, someone with a categorically overwhelming roster advantage is going to win pretty much every time. A player with 100 6* champs is not going to lose to player with nothing but 3* champs, obviously. But the difference between, say, 5* R5 and 6* R2 or even 6* r3 is not so overwhelming that skill doesn't matter. You still have to fight the fight. There is an advantage to be sure, but that advantage doesn't completely eliminate skill from being a factor.

It is less important how large a roster is, and more important which champs the player has ranked up that matters. And I think *most* players simply don't have the resources to rank up a massive deck of battleground-optimal champs, not even most spenders. Mega whales will have advantages in having saturated rosters full of ranked up champs, but a spender with twice the R3s as a free to play player will not, I think, have an insurmountable advantage.

Plus, this game mode will have two groups of players competing in it. The super competitors, and everyone else. Roster size will mean something for the super competitors, because everything will mean something to those players. The smallest edge will be enough to win. A warmer phone might be enough to lose. But for the rest of the playerbase, roster size will be just one factor in a large number of factors that no one will have fully optimized. You'll lose to players with big rosters some of the time, but you'll also win against players with big rosters when you outplay them some of the time.

When we're talking about the typical player and not say, the top tier players, large roster also comes with an interesting disadvantage. If you have a large roster, you're often able to bring optimal champs to every fight. Battlegrounds will take that away. You'll have to go with what you have. How many players with large rosters are constantly using suboptimal attacker choices just to learn how to use them, compared to players who use suboptimal choices because they have to. It isn't all roses for the players used to bringing their full roster to bear on content. I think many players will find that the matches will seem more '"random" than they expect because they will have trouble fighting certain defenders with only a few choices of attacker, but so will their opponents. Fights we think we're going to lose we will actually win because the opponent we're facing isn't used to fighting a fight we think should be easy, because they don't have their favorite option for that fight available.

I think that's going to be part of the fun. The uncertainty will mean more players will be in the fight more often than they think they would be, which will encourage them to try more. People will learn how few perfect players there really are.

Not entirely sure what category you put me in but I've definitely been deck building for months already 👀

DNA3000

And in the end wont a lot of matches be determined by who has the largest roster? I mean, I have a decent 3mil, 30 r3s account and above average skill. But when I'll come up against the whales of this game with 60+ r3, I will be out matched on many occasions. I'll win some, but I'll also lose plenty just because of roster size.
I don't believe so. I mean, someone with a categorically overwhelming roster advantage is going to win pretty much every time. A player with 100 6* champs is not going to lose to player with nothing but 3* champs, obviously. But the difference between, say, 5* R5 and 6* R2 or even 6* r3 is not so overwhelming that skill doesn't matter. You still have to fight the fight. There is an advantage to be sure, but that advantage doesn't completely eliminate skill from being a factor.

It is less important how large a roster is, and more important which champs the player has ranked up that matters. And I think *most* players simply don't have the resources to rank up a massive deck of battleground-optimal champs, not even most spenders. Mega whales will have advantages in having saturated rosters full of ranked up champs, but a spender with twice the R3s as a free to play player will not, I think, have an insurmountable advantage.

Plus, this game mode will have two groups of players competing in it. The super competitors, and everyone else. Roster size will mean something for the super competitors, because everything will mean something to those players. The smallest edge will be enough to win. A warmer phone might be enough to lose. But for the rest of the playerbase, roster size will be just one factor in a large number of factors that no one will have fully optimized. You'll lose to players with big rosters some of the time, but you'll also win against players with big rosters when you outplay them some of the time.

When we're talking about the typical player and not say, the top tier players, large roster also comes with an interesting disadvantage. If you have a large roster, you're often able to bring optimal champs to every fight. Battlegrounds will take that away. You'll have to go with what you have. How many players with large rosters are constantly using suboptimal attacker choices just to learn how to use them, compared to players who use suboptimal choices because they have to. It isn't all roses for the players used to bringing their full roster to bear on content. I think many players will find that the matches will seem more '"random" than they expect because they will have trouble fighting certain defenders with only a few choices of attacker, but so will their opponents. Fights we think we're going to lose we will actually win because the opponent we're facing isn't used to fighting a fight we think should be easy, because they don't have their favorite option for that fight available.

I think that's going to be part of the fun. The uncertainty will mean more players will be in the fight more often than they think they would be, which will encourage them to try more. People will learn how few perfect players there really are.
Not entirely sure what category you put me in but I've definitely been deck building for months already 👀

You're in the category of lying liars that lied about retiring so you could secretly weaponize your roster when you thought no one was paying attention. Didn't fool me for a second.

Worknprogress

And in the end wont a lot of matches be determined by who has the largest roster? I mean, I have a decent 3mil, 30 r3s account and above average skill. But when I'll come up against the whales of this game with 60+ r3, I will be out matched on many occasions. I'll win some, but I'll also lose plenty just because of roster size.
I don't believe so. I mean, someone with a categorically overwhelming roster advantage is going to win pretty much every time. A player with 100 6* champs is not going to lose to player with nothing but 3* champs, obviously. But the difference between, say, 5* R5 and 6* R2 or even 6* r3 is not so overwhelming that skill doesn't matter. You still have to fight the fight. There is an advantage to be sure, but that advantage doesn't completely eliminate skill from being a factor.

It is less important how large a roster is, and more important which champs the player has ranked up that matters. And I think *most* players simply don't have the resources to rank up a massive deck of battleground-optimal champs, not even most spenders. Mega whales will have advantages in having saturated rosters full of ranked up champs, but a spender with twice the R3s as a free to play player will not, I think, have an insurmountable advantage.

Plus, this game mode will have two groups of players competing in it. The super competitors, and everyone else. Roster size will mean something for the super competitors, because everything will mean something to those players. The smallest edge will be enough to win. A warmer phone might be enough to lose. But for the rest of the playerbase, roster size will be just one factor in a large number of factors that no one will have fully optimized. You'll lose to players with big rosters some of the time, but you'll also win against players with big rosters when you outplay them some of the time.

When we're talking about the typical player and not say, the top tier players, large roster also comes with an interesting disadvantage. If you have a large roster, you're often able to bring optimal champs to every fight. Battlegrounds will take that away. You'll have to go with what you have. How many players with large rosters are constantly using suboptimal attacker choices just to learn how to use them, compared to players who use suboptimal choices because they have to. It isn't all roses for the players used to bringing their full roster to bear on content. I think many players will find that the matches will seem more '"random" than they expect because they will have trouble fighting certain defenders with only a few choices of attacker, but so will their opponents. Fights we think we're going to lose we will actually win because the opponent we're facing isn't used to fighting a fight we think should be easy, because they don't have their favorite option for that fight available.

I think that's going to be part of the fun. The uncertainty will mean more players will be in the fight more often than they think they would be, which will encourage them to try more. People will learn how few perfect players there really are.
Not entirely sure what category you put me in but I've definitely been deck building for months already 👀
You're in the category of lying liars that lied about retiring so you could secretly weaponize your roster when you thought no one was paying attention. Didn't fool me for a second.

I did retire from war 😂. I said flat out I wasn't quitting but just stepping back which I did. I still think Map 8 is garbage. A few paths are still terrible and the AI is awful. It's unfortunately necessary for account maintenance currently though so that's what I'm doing until battlegrounds goes live and I decide what to do longer term.

DNA3000

And in the end wont a lot of matches be determined by who has the largest roster? I mean, I have a decent 3mil, 30 r3s account and above average skill. But when I'll come up against the whales of this game with 60+ r3, I will be out matched on many occasions. I'll win some, but I'll also lose plenty just because of roster size.
I don't believe so. I mean, someone with a categorically overwhelming roster advantage is going to win pretty much every time. A player with 100 6* champs is not going to lose to player with nothing but 3* champs, obviously. But the difference between, say, 5* R5 and 6* R2 or even 6* r3 is not so overwhelming that skill doesn't matter. You still have to fight the fight. There is an advantage to be sure, but that advantage doesn't completely eliminate skill from being a factor.

It is less important how large a roster is, and more important which champs the player has ranked up that matters. And I think *most* players simply don't have the resources to rank up a massive deck of battleground-optimal champs, not even most spenders. Mega whales will have advantages in having saturated rosters full of ranked up champs, but a spender with twice the R3s as a free to play player will not, I think, have an insurmountable advantage.

Plus, this game mode will have two groups of players competing in it. The super competitors, and everyone else. Roster size will mean something for the super competitors, because everything will mean something to those players. The smallest edge will be enough to win. A warmer phone might be enough to lose. But for the rest of the playerbase, roster size will be just one factor in a large number of factors that no one will have fully optimized. You'll lose to players with big rosters some of the time, but you'll also win against players with big rosters when you outplay them some of the time.

When we're talking about the typical player and not say, the top tier players, large roster also comes with an interesting disadvantage. If you have a large roster, you're often able to bring optimal champs to every fight. Battlegrounds will take that away. You'll have to go with what you have. How many players with large rosters are constantly using suboptimal attacker choices just to learn how to use them, compared to players who use suboptimal choices because they have to. It isn't all roses for the players used to bringing their full roster to bear on content. I think many players will find that the matches will seem more '"random" than they expect because they will have trouble fighting certain defenders with only a few choices of attacker, but so will their opponents. Fights we think we're going to lose we will actually win because the opponent we're facing isn't used to fighting a fight we think should be easy, because they don't have their favorite option for that fight available.

I think that's going to be part of the fun. The uncertainty will mean more players will be in the fight more often than they think they would be, which will encourage them to try more. People will learn how few perfect players there really are.
Not entirely sure what category you put me in but I've definitely been deck building for months already 👀
You're in the category of lying liars that lied about retiring so you could secretly weaponize your roster when you thought no one was paying attention. Didn't fool me for a second.
I did retire from war 😂. I said flat out I wasn't quitting but just stepping back which I did. I still think Map 8 is garbage. A few paths are still terrible and the AI is awful. It's unfortunately necessary for account maintenance currently though so that's what I'm doing until battlegrounds goes live and I decide what to do longer term.

For high progression accounts like yours, I'm presuming that Relics will be the draw, even if just for the novelty of it. My guess, and this is purely my own supposition, is that Relics will be a kind of stop gap progression that the devs will see how far it can go to hold off on releasing 6* ++. They'll probably fall into the category of not game changing, but somewhat game modifying.

Worknprogress

And in the end wont a lot of matches be determined by who has the largest roster? I mean, I have a decent 3mil, 30 r3s account and above average skill. But when I'll come up against the whales of this game with 60+ r3, I will be out matched on many occasions. I'll win some, but I'll also lose plenty just because of roster size.
I don't believe so. I mean, someone with a categorically overwhelming roster advantage is going to win pretty much every time. A player with 100 6* champs is not going to lose to player with nothing but 3* champs, obviously. But the difference between, say, 5* R5 and 6* R2 or even 6* r3 is not so overwhelming that skill doesn't matter. You still have to fight the fight. There is an advantage to be sure, but that advantage doesn't completely eliminate skill from being a factor.

It is less important how large a roster is, and more important which champs the player has ranked up that matters. And I think *most* players simply don't have the resources to rank up a massive deck of battleground-optimal champs, not even most spenders. Mega whales will have advantages in having saturated rosters full of ranked up champs, but a spender with twice the R3s as a free to play player will not, I think, have an insurmountable advantage.

Plus, this game mode will have two groups of players competing in it. The super competitors, and everyone else. Roster size will mean something for the super competitors, because everything will mean something to those players. The smallest edge will be enough to win. A warmer phone might be enough to lose. But for the rest of the playerbase, roster size will be just one factor in a large number of factors that no one will have fully optimized. You'll lose to players with big rosters some of the time, but you'll also win against players with big rosters when you outplay them some of the time.

When we're talking about the typical player and not say, the top tier players, large roster also comes with an interesting disadvantage. If you have a large roster, you're often able to bring optimal champs to every fight. Battlegrounds will take that away. You'll have to go with what you have. How many players with large rosters are constantly using suboptimal attacker choices just to learn how to use them, compared to players who use suboptimal choices because they have to. It isn't all roses for the players used to bringing their full roster to bear on content. I think many players will find that the matches will seem more '"random" than they expect because they will have trouble fighting certain defenders with only a few choices of attacker, but so will their opponents. Fights we think we're going to lose we will actually win because the opponent we're facing isn't used to fighting a fight we think should be easy, because they don't have their favorite option for that fight available.

I think that's going to be part of the fun. The uncertainty will mean more players will be in the fight more often than they think they would be, which will encourage them to try more. People will learn how few perfect players there really are.
Not entirely sure what category you put me in but I've definitely been deck building for months already 👀
You're in the category of lying liars that lied about retiring so you could secretly weaponize your roster when you thought no one was paying attention. Didn't fool me for a second.
I did retire from war 😂. I said flat out I wasn't quitting but just stepping back which I did. I still think Map 8 is garbage. A few paths are still terrible and the AI is awful. It's unfortunately necessary for account maintenance currently though so that's what I'm doing until battlegrounds goes live and I decide what to do longer term.
For high progression accounts like yours, I'm presuming that Relics will be the draw, even if just for the novelty of it. My guess, and this is purely my own supposition, is that Relics will be a kind of stop gap progression that the devs will see how far it can go to hold off on releasing 6* ++. They'll probably fall into the category of not game changing, but somewhat game modifying.

In all honesty, rewards whether they be the standard rank resources/shards we know currently or something new such as relics are a secondary thought at best for me personally. I've been saying ever since the shift in direction of story content that it's felt rather pointless chasing roster progression at my point outside war. My biggest hope for battlegrounds is to reinvigorate the feel of importance of roster growth.

DNA3000

And in the end wont a lot of matches be determined by who has the largest roster? I mean, I have a decent 3mil, 30 r3s account and above average skill. But when I'll come up against the whales of this game with 60+ r3, I will be out matched on many occasions. I'll win some, but I'll also lose plenty just because of roster size.
I don't believe so. I mean, someone with a categorically overwhelming roster advantage is going to win pretty much every time. A player with 100 6* champs is not going to lose to player with nothing but 3* champs, obviously. But the difference between, say, 5* R5 and 6* R2 or even 6* r3 is not so overwhelming that skill doesn't matter. You still have to fight the fight. There is an advantage to be sure, but that advantage doesn't completely eliminate skill from being a factor.

It is less important how large a roster is, and more important which champs the player has ranked up that matters. And I think *most* players simply don't have the resources to rank up a massive deck of battleground-optimal champs, not even most spenders. Mega whales will have advantages in having saturated rosters full of ranked up champs, but a spender with twice the R3s as a free to play player will not, I think, have an insurmountable advantage.

Plus, this game mode will have two groups of players competing in it. The super competitors, and everyone else. Roster size will mean something for the super competitors, because everything will mean something to those players. The smallest edge will be enough to win. A warmer phone might be enough to lose. But for the rest of the playerbase, roster size will be just one factor in a large number of factors that no one will have fully optimized. You'll lose to players with big rosters some of the time, but you'll also win against players with big rosters when you outplay them some of the time.

When we're talking about the typical player and not say, the top tier players, large roster also comes with an interesting disadvantage. If you have a large roster, you're often able to bring optimal champs to every fight. Battlegrounds will take that away. You'll have to go with what you have. How many players with large rosters are constantly using suboptimal attacker choices just to learn how to use them, compared to players who use suboptimal choices because they have to. It isn't all roses for the players used to bringing their full roster to bear on content. I think many players will find that the matches will seem more '"random" than they expect because they will have trouble fighting certain defenders with only a few choices of attacker, but so will their opponents. Fights we think we're going to lose we will actually win because the opponent we're facing isn't used to fighting a fight we think should be easy, because they don't have their favorite option for that fight available.

I think that's going to be part of the fun. The uncertainty will mean more players will be in the fight more often than they think they would be, which will encourage them to try more. People will learn how few perfect players there really are.
Not entirely sure what category you put me in but I've definitely been deck building for months already 👀
You're in the category of lying liars that lied about retiring so you could secretly weaponize your roster when you thought no one was paying attention. Didn't fool me for a second.
I did retire from war 😂. I said flat out I wasn't quitting but just stepping back which I did. I still think Map 8 is garbage. A few paths are still terrible and the AI is awful. It's unfortunately necessary for account maintenance currently though so that's what I'm doing until battlegrounds goes live and I decide what to do longer term.
For high progression accounts like yours, I'm presuming that Relics will be the draw, even if just for the novelty of it. My guess, and this is purely my own supposition, is that Relics will be a kind of stop gap progression that the devs will see how far it can go to hold off on releasing 6* ++. They'll probably fall into the category of not game changing, but somewhat game modifying.
In all honesty, rewards whether they be the standard rank resources/shards we know currently or something new such as relics are a secondary thought at best for me personally. I've been saying ever since the shift in direction of story content that it's felt rather pointless chasing roster progression at my point outside war. My biggest hope for battlegrounds is to reinvigorate the feel of importance of roster growth.

At best, the biggest draw of Relics would be meta disruptions in that game mode itself, creating a competition feedback loop of a kind alliance war was intended to drive, if it didn't decide to aim for a cliff face instead.