And i am by no means saying that a whale has no skills! I am saying that they always have the advantage! Like the house! Also, not saying that ALL whales have skill! So you do not agree that a whale with skills has a huge advantage over everyone else who may be as skillful but have a limited roster?
Not saying that it is not because of spenders that we get to play! I am grateful for that. What irks me is touting this event as skill based and skill based only! What it is is an event for spenders to show off what they have bought and win back some of the stuff they paid for, and used previously to rank champs. And claiming great skill when the truth is you simply have purchased a massive, well developed roster! In the example above, if kabam provided the roster, a player with awesome skills and a very limited roster could potentally take down platinum and master alliance players. Then we would see pure skill at work Just please stop arguing that there is anyplace in this game where you cannot buy your way to the top!.
I don’t think this mode has ever been touted as skill only. Obviously those who have spent will come into it with an advantage, just like in every other content in the game. But deck selection, defensive and offensive choices, and pure skill are all major factors at play in this mode.
Kabam shouldn’t provide the roster for you because that defeats the entire purpose of the game to go out and earn champs to build the roster. Do spenders have a roster advantage then? Yes, and deservedly so. They paid for that, while FTP opted not to.
Can FTP be effective in this game mode? Absolutely. Is it purely spend to win? Absolutely not.
F2P players can score some bonus supplies, but i seriously doubt a completely f2p player will ever rank near the top of the board. So for f2p players is is just another grind option to aquire bits and pieces of things.
Battle Ground is too P2W, they need to be able to sort out the matches by total Prestige or your Profile Prestige or the matches will be way to unfair, here’s one match that I played and here’s his pfp You can’t tell me that P2W is going to lose to a F2P, you can even be a person that spends like 10 dollars and you’ll still lose to people who spend a lot
I’m F2P and I’ve beaten many people that have much vaster rosters than I. You cannot seriously say that P2W should not have some sort of advantage. Sure, I don’t like how the charges work but P2W should be able to use the roster they paid for.
Oh? What would show skill is if Kabam provided the decks. And the decks were equal. Then it would be about skill. But how can you possibly argue that somebody who drops thousands (as some whales do) on brand new champs, that they can immediately awaken and rank with $, does not have a huge PURCHASED advantage over f2p players with smaller rosters and less buffed up champs! Even in battlegrounds! You can simply rank your way to victory. And seriously??? Which part actually requires skill? And do not get me wrong! There are many players with skill! And many place in the game you can prove it. But in this game having skill never equals being at the top by itself!
So do you want to hear how wrong you are or do you want to keep touting it as “P2W bad”?
If you think it's pay to win now....just wait until they monetize relics on top of already monetizing roster depth. I was hoping Battlegrounds would be less about monetization, but it would be silly to assume Kabam (knowing their history and the trajectory of the game) would agree.
If they didn't "monetize" their game then it would not exist.
This game is a free download, and you can play it without spending money. To compete at the top you either have to spend a couple of years playing or spend money to get there faster. But, again, without people spending, there would be no "there" to get to. Fact.
Just wait till it's live in game Soon we'll see similar division that we see in AW & AQ Spenders will be at the top in Masters with some F2P in Platinums, & most F2Ps in Golds Other than that I think we'll also see a division between grinders & non-grinders in BGs but that probably won't be as apparent
Battlegrounds is skill based. You can't revive you're way through this mode. You're 100% wrong.
It's Skill + Roster + RNG Neither 100% skill nor 100% roster Skill matters the most, but to think that roster depth is insignificant would be foolish
Got some P2W elements, but that doesn’t bother me. It’s that this is just another AW.
Another game mode that pushes you to rank up champions for defense. Another game mode that constantly puts annoying defenders against you with annoying nodes. It’s all just draining to me. I don’t play AW because of this.
I worry about this game mode because other games with ladder systems struggle a lot with the ranking. And these games have nearly a decade of data to work with. Those games have trouble with matchmaking still. How will Kabam handle stacked rosters that haven’t played much? Will they be matched with newer players? Will the ladder reset? How often? How will they combat tanking for easier matches? How will matchmaking work for the top of the ladder? Are they ready for the toxicity that single player PVP breeds?
Just so many issues that will take a very long time to work out.
Just wait till it's live in game Soon we'll see similar division that we see in AW & AQ Spenders will be at the top in Masters with some F2P in Platinums, & most F2Ps in Golds Other than that I think we'll also see a division between grinders & non-grinders in BGs but that probably won't be as apparent
Battlegrounds is skill based. You can't revive you're way through this mode. You're 100% wrong.
I can't imagine but I have to agree with demonzfyre here on this. I am an F2P though. Roster is surely a huge factor for battleground but not above strategy. Strategy is all u need on bg.
I've won against much bigger rosters than mine filled with troublesome defenders and have also lost against smaller rosters where I got outsmarted and outskilled. It all depends on your strategy, skills and a bit of luck.
Just wait till it's live in game Soon we'll see similar division that we see in AW & AQ Spenders will be at the top in Masters with some F2P in Platinums, & most F2Ps in Golds Other than that I think we'll also see a division between grinders & non-grinders in BGs but that probably won't be as apparent
Battlegrounds is skill based. You can't revive you're way through this mode. You're 100% wrong.
It's Skill + Roster + RNG Neither 100% skill nor 100% roster Skill matters the most, but to think that roster depth is insignificant would be foolish
But that's where battle rating will become the equalizer. Just like AW matchmaking.
I won to an account that a significant amount of rank 3s, even a rank 4 herc...
No pay to win. All skill, depends on your roster, who you get in a roll, who you pick etc. Obviously those with a bigger roster have more choices, but pay to win? No, not this mode let alone any mode.
Safeguard is critical to that outcome though. A really good defender with safeguard takes a very similar of time to take down regardless of their ranking. It's only their ability to deal damage to you that's affected. Furthermore, champs who have enough access to DoT effects will still be relatively alright as attackers even as 4 Stars.
I haven’t spent in a long time and when I did I maybe invested $200 total if that. Anything is possible if you pick the right champs for your roster and base building your roster around the global node. I fully expected to get run over here but I was able to beat the legend himself.
Kabam, how about: roll back the AI change that gives it a free All or Nothing node so that we don't need to run back and forth for minutes trying to force a special during timed matches? It's ridiculous. I have no idea where to post this and this thread seems good enough since I've been losing matches to this as well. Can't make my deck from power control champions alone, especially with the nodes as restrictive as safeguard with a timer.
F2P players can score some bonus supplies, but i seriously doubt a completely f2p player will ever rank near the top of the board. So for f2p players is is just another grind option to aquire bits and pieces of things.
How can you say this when nobody even knows what we will be playing for or earning at this point? Let's just chill until it actually gets rolled out officially.
And if at that point, people who have spent money have an advantage, then so be it. They paid for the advantage, and if you beat them at that point, you'll have that feather in your cap...
F2P players can score some bonus supplies, but i seriously doubt a completely f2p player will ever rank near the top of the board. So for f2p players is is just another grind option to aquire bits and pieces of things.
Is there any serious competition anywhere where this would be true? I mean, it isn't even true for Chess. Chess is seen as the ultimate skill based game, but there are no free to play top tier chess players. It takes more money to become a top tier Chess competitor than it takes to buy your way to a whale-sized roster in this game.
Top tier chess competitors have to be discovered at very young ages, because the training it takes to become a top tier chess player is extensive and expensive, and by the time you're a teenager you're probably too old to start. It takes a lot of money to compete, first in local tournaments and then in international ones. All the top tier competitors have sponsors to defray those costs. Top tier chess players may be competing in one of the purest skill-based competitive games in existence, but it takes a small fortune to get them into that seat at the board. A completely free to play Chess player is not going to rank near the top of the leaderboards.
The whole point of paying, is to have an advantage over others. Either you reach a goal earlier, more likely to get a champion or have ranked up champions.
A highly skilled player can still destroy a player who's invested a lot into the game.
I'm far from the biggest player, definitely bigger than the one you're crying about. I still don't fancy coming up against the likes of Swedeah or MSD. The players we see on the leaderboards whenever we have summoner showdowns, very few of them are the in the top AQ alliances which are typically the spenders.
Yes, spending will give you a bigger advantage, but it's an advantage, not a guarantee. Its knowledge, skill and your ability to counter and outsmart your opponents deck which will ultimately win.
The player you've matched against, could be a 6/7 year old account who's played hard, there's ftp players I've seen bigger than him. I've seen limited spend players bigger than whales.
Once the leaderboards are out, and it levels out similar to in AW, you'll stop being matched against players like him as much, and the ones you do face are likely to be a lot less skilled in the mode.
Currently in game, the vast majority of defenders, have multiple counters. There is no holy grail I need this attacker, or this defender.. and even if there was, and a whale managed to pull it out of a cav crystal - you can ban champs 🤣
You need to accept you will not be able to out compete certain people, we haven't even seen the reward structure and there's complaints about it being unbalanced. End of the day, unless they do it similar to comic con, where everyone's given an equal deck, equal masteries, then there will always be an imbalance, but that's part of the challenge and fun of it, overcoming someone else and learning. If you think it's unbalanced now, wait until the relic system is implemented..
I still don't fancy coming up against the likes of Swedeah or MSD.
If I had to face all the whales in the game in every BG match up, or just MSD every single time, I'm picking the whales.
I don't care how pay to win people think battlegrounds is, I'm not afraid of anyone's wallet. The only way I'm beating MSD is if he falls asleep waiting for me to finish my fight.
F2P players can score some bonus supplies, but i seriously doubt a completely f2p player will ever rank near the top of the board. So for f2p players is is just another grind option to aquire bits and pieces of things.
Is there any serious competition anywhere where this would be true? I mean, it isn't even true for Chess. Chess is seen as the ultimate skill based game, but there are no free to play top tier chess players. It takes more money to become a top tier Chess competitor than it takes to buy your way to a whale-sized roster in this game.
Top tier chess competitors have to be discovered at very young ages, because the training it takes to become a top tier chess player is extensive and expensive, and by the time you're a teenager you're probably too old to start. It takes a lot of money to compete, first in local tournaments and then in international ones. All the top tier competitors have sponsors to defray those costs. Top tier chess players may be competing in one of the purest skill-based competitive games in existence, but it takes a small fortune to get them into that seat at the board. A completely free to play Chess player is not going to rank near the top of the leaderboards.
Is Chess pay to win?
A very unfair analogy.
Every sport requires money to play (technically so does MCOC, you need a device with internet). But in those sports, if one has enough skill, they are endorsed in some way. Nearly every prodigy was picked up as a result of joining/being invited to a chess club. Coaches take portions of winnings for those players.
In football, baseball, soccer, basketball, etc. It’s expensive to create facilities and buy equipment. But a top skilled athlete will make it their entire life throughout the levels paying nothing to get there.
It’s not like you go buy a chess board and it only has pawns in it with a note saying, “Please send $10 to unlock your rook.” Or “Just 1,000 more games and your bishop unlocks the ability ‘Move backwards’.” No, you have everything available to you to showcase your skill and use that skill to be endorsed to the top. If you lack that prodigy level skill, THEN you have to purchase coaching. Your lack of skill costs money to alleviate.
As an aside, there have been many late life GMs. Also, former World Champions Capablanca, Lasker, Steinitz, Rubinstein, and Alekhine all did so without formal coaching; to name a few (could probably think of more). Capablanca most famously admitted after securing the title that he never even read a book on openings.
F2P players can score some bonus supplies, but i seriously doubt a completely f2p player will ever rank near the top of the board. So for f2p players is is just another grind option to aquire bits and pieces of things.
Is there any serious competition anywhere where this would be true? I mean, it isn't even true for Chess. Chess is seen as the ultimate skill based game, but there are no free to play top tier chess players. It takes more money to become a top tier Chess competitor than it takes to buy your way to a whale-sized roster in this game.
Top tier chess competitors have to be discovered at very young ages, because the training it takes to become a top tier chess player is extensive and expensive, and by the time you're a teenager you're probably too old to start. It takes a lot of money to compete, first in local tournaments and then in international ones. All the top tier competitors have sponsors to defray those costs. Top tier chess players may be competing in one of the purest skill-based competitive games in existence, but it takes a small fortune to get them into that seat at the board. A completely free to play Chess player is not going to rank near the top of the leaderboards.
Is Chess pay to win?
A very unfair analogy.
Every sport requires money to play (technically so does MCOC, you need a device with internet). But in those sports, if one has enough skill, they are endorsed in some way. Nearly every prodigy was picked up as a result of joining/being invited to a chess club. Coaches take portions of winnings for those players.
In football, baseball, soccer, basketball, etc. It’s expensive to create facilities and buy equipment. But a top skilled athlete will make it their entire life throughout the levels paying nothing to get there.
It’s not like you go buy a chess board and it only has pawns in it with a note saying, “Please send $10 to unlock your rook.” Or “Just 1,000 more games and your bishop unlocks the ability ‘Move backwards’.” No, you have everything available to you to showcase your skill and use that skill to be endorsed to the top. If you lack that prodigy level skill, THEN you have to purchase coaching. Your lack of skill costs money to alleviate.
As an aside, there have been many late life GMs. Also, former World Champions Capablanca, Lasker, Steinitz, Rubinstein, and Alekhine all did so without formal coaching; to name a few (could probably think of more). Capablanca most famously admitted after securing the title that he never even read a book on openings.
But then you have the likes of BG who competed at the top level without spending. I've got guys in my alliance which are limited in how much they spend outside of major sales.
DNAs comparison was fair. You pay for an advantage, F2P if skilled, can out compete someone who's paid for an advantage, but of course, paying will give some sort of advantage.
How do you think they pay for the dev team? Look at how many employees there are for MCOC.. I don't see any ad revenue. That money comes from the incentive of paying to gain an advantage. If they remove that, then there's no dev team. The game is not pay to win, its not as if there's a champion exclusively only available for money which breaks the game. Money enables you to progress and reach somewhere faster, those who don't spend, can still get there, just slower.
AQ is the same, theoretically, with the right account management and rng, you could compete at the top tier, but, you have to pay to guarantee that - and even then, its not like you can say to Kabam here's a grand, give me surfer.. look at seatin when he chased Doom. I pulled doom as a 6* out of early access - I've never had him since. I know people who have pulled him after max sig 3/4 times.
You need to learn the difference between pay to win, and pay for an advantage.
F2P players can score some bonus supplies, but i seriously doubt a completely f2p player will ever rank near the top of the board. So for f2p players is is just another grind option to aquire bits and pieces of things.
Is there any serious competition anywhere where this would be true? I mean, it isn't even true for Chess. Chess is seen as the ultimate skill based game, but there are no free to play top tier chess players. It takes more money to become a top tier Chess competitor than it takes to buy your way to a whale-sized roster in this game.
Top tier chess competitors have to be discovered at very young ages, because the training it takes to become a top tier chess player is extensive and expensive, and by the time you're a teenager you're probably too old to start. It takes a lot of money to compete, first in local tournaments and then in international ones. All the top tier competitors have sponsors to defray those costs. Top tier chess players may be competing in one of the purest skill-based competitive games in existence, but it takes a small fortune to get them into that seat at the board. A completely free to play Chess player is not going to rank near the top of the leaderboards.
Is Chess pay to win?
A very unfair analogy.
Every sport requires money to play (technically so does MCOC, you need a device with internet). But in those sports, if one has enough skill, they are endorsed in some way. Nearly every prodigy was picked up as a result of joining/being invited to a chess club. Coaches take portions of winnings for those players.
In football, baseball, soccer, basketball, etc. It’s expensive to create facilities and buy equipment. But a top skilled athlete will make it their entire life throughout the levels paying nothing to get there.
It’s not like you go buy a chess board and it only has pawns in it with a note saying, “Please send $10 to unlock your rook.” Or “Just 1,000 more games and your bishop unlocks the ability ‘Move backwards’.” No, you have everything available to you to showcase your skill and use that skill to be endorsed to the top. If you lack that prodigy level skill, THEN you have to purchase coaching. Your lack of skill costs money to alleviate.
As an aside, there have been many late life GMs. Also, former World Champions Capablanca, Lasker, Steinitz, Rubinstein, and Alekhine all did so without formal coaching; to name a few (could probably think of more). Capablanca most famously admitted after securing the title that he never even read a book on openings.
But then you have the likes of BG who competed at the top level without spending. I've got guys in my alliance which are limited in how much they spend outside of major sales.
DNAs comparison was fair. You pay for an advantage, F2P if skilled, can out compete someone who's paid for an advantage, but of course, paying will give some sort of advantage.
How do you think they pay for the dev team? Look at how many employees there are for MCOC.. I don't see any ad revenue. That money comes from the incentive of paying to gain an advantage. If they remove that, then there's no dev team. The game is not pay to win, its not as if there's a champion exclusively only available for money which breaks the game. Money enables you to progress and reach somewhere faster, those who don't spend, can still get there, just slower.
AQ is the same, theoretically, with the right account management and rng, you could compete at the top tier, but, you have to pay to guarantee that - and even then, its not like you can say to Kabam here's a grand, give me surfer.. look at seatin when he chased Doom. I pulled doom as a 6* out of early access - I've never had him since. I know people who have pulled him after max sig 3/4 times.
You need to learn the difference between pay to win, and pay for an advantage.
His argument was that you must pay to be at the top of chess and skill is secondary. That is false and we have plenty of historical references which challenge this.
In chess, you have every aspect of the game at your disposal to use your skill to propel you to the top.
A prodigy MCOC uncollected player will never be at the top of the leaderboards. They lack the roster. In MCOC, you do not have every aspect of the game to use.
I’m not arguing BGs are P2W. I’m saying the chess analogy does not work without major leaps of logic.
Comments
Also, not saying that ALL whales have skill!
So you do not agree that a whale with skills has a huge advantage over everyone else who may be as skillful but have a limited roster?
Kabam shouldn’t provide the roster for you because that defeats the entire purpose of the game to go out and earn champs to build the roster. Do spenders have a roster advantage then? Yes, and deservedly so. They paid for that, while FTP opted not to.
Can FTP be effective in this game mode? Absolutely. Is it purely spend to win? Absolutely not.
This game is a free download, and you can play it without spending money. To compete at the top you either have to spend a couple of years playing or spend money to get there faster. But, again, without people spending, there would be no "there" to get to. Fact.
Neither 100% skill nor 100% roster
Skill matters the most, but to think that roster depth is insignificant would be foolish
Another game mode that pushes you to rank up champions for defense. Another game mode that constantly puts annoying defenders against you with annoying nodes. It’s all just draining to me. I don’t play AW because of this.
I worry about this game mode because other games with ladder systems struggle a lot with the ranking. And these games have nearly a decade of data to work with. Those games have trouble with matchmaking still. How will Kabam handle stacked rosters that haven’t played much? Will they be matched with newer players? Will the ladder reset? How often? How will they combat tanking for easier matches? How will matchmaking work for the top of the ladder? Are they ready for the toxicity that single player PVP breeds?
Just so many issues that will take a very long time to work out.
I haven’t spent in a long time and when I did I maybe invested $200 total if that. Anything is possible if you pick the right champs for your roster and base building your roster around the global node. I fully expected to get run over here but I was able to beat the legend himself.
How can you say this when nobody even knows what we will be playing for or earning at this point? Let's just chill until it actually gets rolled out officially.
And if at that point, people who have spent money have an advantage, then so be it. They paid for the advantage, and if you beat them at that point, you'll have that feather in your cap...
Top tier chess competitors have to be discovered at very young ages, because the training it takes to become a top tier chess player is extensive and expensive, and by the time you're a teenager you're probably too old to start. It takes a lot of money to compete, first in local tournaments and then in international ones. All the top tier competitors have sponsors to defray those costs. Top tier chess players may be competing in one of the purest skill-based competitive games in existence, but it takes a small fortune to get them into that seat at the board. A completely free to play Chess player is not going to rank near the top of the leaderboards.
Is Chess pay to win?
He only had 2 r4’s and none of his profile champs are newer than 12 months old.
Yeah he has sigil but that’s hardly game breaking.
I just beat a very similar account 14k prestige 2 r4’s with my 11k prestige account, choose name and match ups wisely.
A highly skilled player can still destroy a player who's invested a lot into the game.
I'm far from the biggest player, definitely bigger than the one you're crying about. I still don't fancy coming up against the likes of Swedeah or MSD. The players we see on the leaderboards whenever we have summoner showdowns, very few of them are the in the top AQ alliances which are typically the spenders.
Yes, spending will give you a bigger advantage, but it's an advantage, not a guarantee. Its knowledge, skill and your ability to counter and outsmart your opponents deck which will ultimately win.
The player you've matched against, could be a 6/7 year old account who's played hard, there's ftp players I've seen bigger than him. I've seen limited spend players bigger than whales.
Once the leaderboards are out, and it levels out similar to in AW, you'll stop being matched against players like him as much, and the ones you do face are likely to be a lot less skilled in the mode.
Currently in game, the vast majority of defenders, have multiple counters. There is no holy grail I need this attacker, or this defender.. and even if there was, and a whale managed to pull it out of a cav crystal - you can ban champs 🤣
You need to accept you will not be able to out compete certain people, we haven't even seen the reward structure and there's complaints about it being unbalanced. End of the day, unless they do it similar to comic con, where everyone's given an equal deck, equal masteries, then there will always be an imbalance, but that's part of the challenge and fun of it, overcoming someone else and learning. If you think it's unbalanced now, wait until the relic system is implemented..
I don't care how pay to win people think battlegrounds is, I'm not afraid of anyone's wallet. The only way I'm beating MSD is if he falls asleep waiting for me to finish my fight.
Every sport requires money to play (technically so does MCOC, you need a device with internet). But in those sports, if one has enough skill, they are endorsed in some way. Nearly every prodigy was picked up as a result of joining/being invited to a chess club. Coaches take portions of winnings for those players.
In football, baseball, soccer, basketball, etc. It’s expensive to create facilities and buy equipment. But a top skilled athlete will make it their entire life throughout the levels paying nothing to get there.
It’s not like you go buy a chess board and it only has pawns in it with a note saying, “Please send $10 to unlock your rook.” Or “Just 1,000 more games and your bishop unlocks the ability ‘Move backwards’.” No, you have everything available to you to showcase your skill and use that skill to be endorsed to the top. If you lack that prodigy level skill, THEN you have to purchase coaching. Your lack of skill costs money to alleviate.
As an aside, there have been many late life GMs. Also, former World Champions Capablanca, Lasker, Steinitz, Rubinstein, and Alekhine all did so without formal coaching; to name a few (could probably think of more). Capablanca most famously admitted after securing the title that he never even read a book on openings.
DNAs comparison was fair. You pay for an advantage, F2P if skilled, can out compete someone who's paid for an advantage, but of course, paying will give some sort of advantage.
How do you think they pay for the dev team? Look at how many employees there are for MCOC.. I don't see any ad revenue. That money comes from the incentive of paying to gain an advantage. If they remove that, then there's no dev team. The game is not pay to win, its not as if there's a champion exclusively only available for money which breaks the game. Money enables you to progress and reach somewhere faster, those who don't spend, can still get there, just slower.
AQ is the same, theoretically, with the right account management and rng, you could compete at the top tier, but, you have to pay to guarantee that - and even then, its not like you can say to Kabam here's a grand, give me surfer.. look at seatin when he chased Doom. I pulled doom as a 6* out of early access - I've never had him since. I know people who have pulled him after max sig 3/4 times.
You need to learn the difference between pay to win, and pay for an advantage.
In chess, you have every aspect of the game at your disposal to use your skill to propel you to the top.
A prodigy MCOC uncollected player will never be at the top of the leaderboards. They lack the roster. In MCOC, you do not have every aspect of the game to use.
I’m not arguing BGs are P2W. I’m saying the chess analogy does not work without major leaps of logic.