This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
As these others have tried to explain, if you need to lower your deck to face opponents weaker than you in order to climb up the ladder, then you’re not in the tier you belong. Giving yourself “half a deck” doesn’t make you thee better player. It makes you the player who can’t fight people on your own level.
At this point, you’re choosing not to get it and twisting the narrative to make it sound like you’re the skilled player, you’re not.
Wrong.
It's crazy to me that you, and may others, think that a Cav should be higher on the VT as a Paragon because Cavs should never face a Paragon. That is just garbage.
I’m not sure where this argument came to play as I never said that. I said if you have to purposefully use half a deck in order to climb the ranks, you don’t deserve to be in the tier you are in.
If a cav has climbed up and shiuld come across a paragon in their tier, then yeah, they should be able to take them and if not then they found their wall. If a paragon on the other hand is crippling their deck so that they fight weaker opponents such as a cav, in order to climb the ranks then yeah, that’s sandbagging and trash.
Point to where I said cavs should be able to climb without having to fight paragons, I can wait. Because all my arguments were for against sandbagging, not people getting an easy ride. It’s a competitive game mode for a reason, fight people of your strength and better.
How can anyone take you seriously when you literally admitted in a different thread on this subject to trying sandbagging but stated you didn't have strong enough top champs for it to work for you so you stopped doing it and now you say that you would never do anything like sandbagging. Your a massive hypocrite dude.
You seem to be too dense to understand the difference so let me spell it out for ya. I tried it a few times because I didn't know how else to have fair matches and actually have a chance to get points and climb the ladder, and given that my roster is at the bottom when it comes to rating since I barely became uncollected two weeks ago, it wouldn't have harmed anyone because almost nobody is below me (which in fact it didn't harm anyone). You on the other hand do it because you want to get your rewards easily with no effort whatsoever even though you do have a choice which is fighting people that are at your same level. I was forced to sandbag so I could get fair matches, you chose to sandbag not because you were trying to get fair matches but because you were trying to get easy matches and have no chance of losing. Takes three brain cells to see this is nothing but a domino effect, and if what I was trying to do was get easier matches to get free easy wins like you I certainly wouldn't be celebrating the fact that they're going to change matchmaking again very soon to prevent sandbagging. Now go keep malding somewhere else this is getting old
You really enjoy name calling and trying to insult people don't you? I see that trend on many of your posts, it really shows your level of maturity (or lack thereof).
Despite that, let's look at the facts. You constantly post complaints about "unfair matchups" and "sandbagging" yet you have tried this approach yourself. You have said you would never do sandbagging and people who do are "cheating" but you tried to do it to gain an advantage and only stopped because it didn't work for you because of your weak roster.
How can you keep negatively judging others for doing what you, yourself tried doing in an attempt to win? You didn't stop doing it because of some moral revelation, you stopped because even with doing this attempt your roster was still too weak and it didn't work for you. We both know if it had worked for you, you wouldn't be posting nonstop posts on this subject and wouldn't keep getting so triggered when someone disagrees with you or catches you on your hypocrisy.
Dude, you've been going after me for weeks, you're literally obsessed cause you're always replying to my stuff on every post what else did you expect? You're hilarious lmao.
Constantly? I made one post, ONE post about having unfair matchups what are you in about? You're weirdly obsessed man go touch some grass.
Of course I tried it genius what else was I supposed to do? Sit there and keep watching as thronebreakers and paragons did it to me preventing me from getting points?
To gain an advantage? Did you read my reply at all? I tried it to see if my rating was low enough I'd get people who were at my level because nobody could've possibly been below me all I have is maxed out 4* lol. I also never said I wouldn't do it in general, what I said was I wouldn't do it just to get easy matches and get my rewards quick, which isn't what I was trying to do because for the tenth time my roster is at the bottom, you have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Cause I had no choice, the others did, do you not see the difference in "not having a choice" and "having one". It's like talking to a wall, you're malding this bad you can't even process a sentence. It wouldn't have worked for me because I'm at the bottom, I was fully aware of that so I knew it wouldn't harm anyone cause I was already at the bottom, and I wasn't wrong. I'm not triggered lmao you're the one that's been going after me non stop for weeks now, every single time you see me in the forums you just reply with some L take and think you really did something. You have issues, go work on them
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
Okay so per your logic there will now be no divisions in boxing, a lightweight can go up against a heavyweight! Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
There is no rating in VT so matching by rating there basically just means match based on whatever tier of the track you're currently in. There isn't a way to manipulate that as you can't lower your tier.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
Couple of ways to circumvent the problems you mentioned in the post. 1. Make matching completely random within the same tier. Anyone is fair game within the given tier. 2. Eliminate victory track and objectives altogether. You get nominal trophy tokens and elder marks for each win and there are rewards for end of season based on where you place. This gives motivation/incentive for people to try to win. You move up the leader board by winning and you match those closest to your rating to win. There is no benefit to tanking your rating except to collect easy wins and get trophy tokens you get for victory.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
Okay so per your logic there will now be no divisions in boxing, a lightweight can go up against a heavyweight! Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
If a lightweight want's to win the heavyweight title he should expect to fight heavyweights.
What you, and may others, won't understand is that we're all in the same league and fighting for the same rewards.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
There is no rating in the VT and you can't drop tiers so purposely losing doesn't help you win more in the future. I'm honestly not following you at all here.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
There is no rating in the VT and you can't drop tiers so purposely losing doesn't help you win more in the future. I'm honestly not following you at all here.
That's because you seem to be picking and choosing your points of contention.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
There is no rating in VT so matching by rating there basically just means match based on whatever tier of the track you're currently in. There isn't a way to manipulate that as you can't lower your tier.
You keep saying that, and I'm going to keep repeating that whenever someone suggests not matching by deck I'm going to assume they mean match by ELO, because I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt they aren't suggesting matching purely by tier, because that's ridiculous.
However, I'm all for matching everyone randomly within track as well, because it simply means everyone with gigantic roster will simply obliterate everyone in the process of moving up through the tracks. But this will never happen, because the developers are game developers, not a lunatic competition committee, and they need to make a game mode where 98% of their players don't get consistently destroyed by the veterans every season and decide to quit the mode altogether. This particular option I don't need to spend too much time considering the ramifications of, because if they were to implement that one the mode won't be around long enough for it to be worth spending time theorycrafting.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
Couple of ways to circumvent the problems you mentioned in the post. 1. Make matching completely random within the same tier. Anyone is fair game within the given tier. 2. Eliminate victory track and objectives altogether. You get nominal trophy tokens and elder marks for each win and there are rewards for end of season based on where you place. This gives motivation/incentive for people to try to win. You move up the leader board by winning and you match those closest to your rating to win. There is no benefit to tanking your rating except to collect easy wins and get trophy tokens you get for victory.
Before we consider eliminating the victory track altogether as a solution, it is probably worth asking the question why it is even there at all. The devs do not just make extra work for themselves. It is there to solve a range of problems that having one large Gladiator track does not solve. What do you suppose those are?
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
Couple of ways to circumvent the problems you mentioned in the post. 1. Make matching completely random within the same tier. Anyone is fair game within the given tier. 2. Eliminate victory track and objectives altogether. You get nominal trophy tokens and elder marks for each win and there are rewards for end of season based on where you place. This gives motivation/incentive for people to try to win. You move up the leader board by winning and you match those closest to your rating to win. There is no benefit to tanking your rating except to collect easy wins and get trophy tokens you get for victory.
Before we consider eliminating the victory track altogether as a solution, it is probably worth asking the question why it is even there at all. The devs do not just make extra work for themselves. It is there to solve a range of problems that having one large Gladiator track does not solve. What do you suppose those are?
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
Couple of ways to circumvent the problems you mentioned in the post. 1. Make matching completely random within the same tier. Anyone is fair game within the given tier. 2. Eliminate victory track and objectives altogether. You get nominal trophy tokens and elder marks for each win and there are rewards for end of season based on where you place. This gives motivation/incentive for people to try to win. You move up the leader board by winning and you match those closest to your rating to win. There is no benefit to tanking your rating except to collect easy wins and get trophy tokens you get for victory.
Before we consider eliminating the victory track altogether as a solution, it is probably worth asking the question why it is even there at all. The devs do not just make extra work for themselves. It is there to solve a range of problems that having one large Gladiator track does not solve. What do you suppose those are?
Care to enlighten? Since you have an inside track to the developers.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
There is no rating in VT so matching by rating there basically just means match based on whatever tier of the track you're currently in. There isn't a way to manipulate that as you can't lower your tier.
You keep saying that, and I'm going to keep repeating that whenever someone suggests not matching by deck I'm going to assume they mean match by ELO, because I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt they aren't suggesting matching purely by tier, because that's ridiculous.
However, I'm all for matching everyone randomly within track as well, because it simply means everyone with gigantic roster will simply obliterate everyone in the process of moving up through the tracks. But this will never happen, because the developers are game developers, not a lunatic competition committee, and they need to make a game mode where 98% of their players don't get consistently destroyed by the veterans every season and decide to quit the mode altogether. This particular option I don't need to spend too much time considering the ramifications of, because if they were to implement that one the mode won't be around long enough for it to be worth spending time theorycrafting.
Then separate the progression levels. Putting everyone on the same track but trying to segregate by matching decks is just asinine bc if there's one sure thing with gamers, it's that there's always a large portion of them that are completely okay with manipulating things to go in their favor. Instead of wasting all this time trying to figure out how to match decks with the least amount of player manipulation possible, just separate the players to begin with, make matching random so it can't be manipulated, and be done with it. Random matching is only bad for casuals when you do something as dumb as putting everyone in the same pool with the same starting point.
Bro…. Just change ur roster to lower end 4*s and 5*s and match up with someone at that skill level then. Otherwise don’t be bringing 6* rank 3s and 4s to against ppl with no more than 5*s at rank 3. Come on now.
Let me race u to the corner … here is some running shoes…. I’m driving there. Let’s see who wins. Bruh…..
As a Paragon myself I didnt have the luck of climbing up thru the Victory Track facing Uncollected players... If u are Cav and start facing TB and Paragon... Chances are u reached your peak
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
There is no rating in VT so matching by rating there basically just means match based on whatever tier of the track you're currently in. There isn't a way to manipulate that as you can't lower your tier.
You keep saying that, and I'm going to keep repeating that whenever someone suggests not matching by deck I'm going to assume they mean match by ELO, because I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt they aren't suggesting matching purely by tier, because that's ridiculous.
However, I'm all for matching everyone randomly within track as well, because it simply means everyone with gigantic roster will simply obliterate everyone in the process of moving up through the tracks. But this will never happen, because the developers are game developers, not a lunatic competition committee, and they need to make a game mode where 98% of their players don't get consistently destroyed by the veterans every season and decide to quit the mode altogether. This particular option I don't need to spend too much time considering the ramifications of, because if they were to implement that one the mode won't be around long enough for it to be worth spending time theorycrafting.
Then separate the progression levels. Putting everyone on the same track but trying to segregate by matching decks is just asinine bc if there's one sure thing with gamers, it's that there's always a large portion of them that are completely okay with manipulating things to go in their favor. Instead of wasting all this time trying to figure out how to match decks with the least amount of player manipulation possible, just separate the players to begin with, make matching random so it can't be manipulated, and be done with it. Random matching is only bad for casuals when you do something as dumb as putting everyone in the same pool with the same starting point.
Strictly for discussion purposes, it is my time to waste. But in terms of what I would do if I was in charge, I already posted that: I would simply rate decks by their highest CR champ in the deck. And then I would call it a day. It seems to solve all the problems I think are problems, and doesn't introduce any new problems that I think are problems. For me, that would be Miller time.
Before we consider eliminating the victory track altogether as a solution, it is probably worth asking the question why it is even there at all. The devs do not just make extra work for themselves. It is there to solve a range of problems that having one large Gladiator track does not solve. What do you suppose those are?
Care to enlighten? Since you have an inside track to the developers.
I have an idea, but I was interested to know what you think, because you seem to be willing to toss it aside very cavalierly.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
Okay so per your logic there will now be no divisions in boxing, a lightweight can go up against a heavyweight! Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
If a lightweight want's to win the heavyweight title he should expect to fight heavyweights.
What you, and may others, won't understand is that we're all in the same league and fighting for the same rewards.
The heavyweight title being gladiator's circuit in which case I agree. However, the fact that we can get matched with paragons who sandbag while we're in bronze is ridiculous.
What you don't understand is that what you think the objective of the game mode is, is not what Kabam have in mind. They don't want Paragon fighting Cavalier, they don't want Thronebreaker fighting Uncollected, hence they're changing the matchmaking system once again very soon. You're wrong
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
There is no rating in VT so matching by rating there basically just means match based on whatever tier of the track you're currently in. There isn't a way to manipulate that as you can't lower your tier.
You keep saying that, and I'm going to keep repeating that whenever someone suggests not matching by deck I'm going to assume they mean match by ELO, because I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt they aren't suggesting matching purely by tier, because that's ridiculous.
However, I'm all for matching everyone randomly within track as well, because it simply means everyone with gigantic roster will simply obliterate everyone in the process of moving up through the tracks. But this will never happen, because the developers are game developers, not a lunatic competition committee, and they need to make a game mode where 98% of their players don't get consistently destroyed by the veterans every season and decide to quit the mode altogether. This particular option I don't need to spend too much time considering the ramifications of, because if they were to implement that one the mode won't be around long enough for it to be worth spending time theorycrafting.
Matching by tier, where everyone is fighting for the same rewards and each win rewards the same points regardless of title is not ridiculous. Kabam putting everyone in the same tier to start and not awarding more points for beating higher players is what is actually ridiculous.
There seems like a new thread every day from some Cav or TB who is pissed because they got the the GC and can't win a match. Those threads are annoying because of how much harder it is for Paragons to get there when it should be the opposite. I have a ~80% win rate and even with that it was a slog to get out of the VT.
I'd be 100% fine with only matching Paragons in Bronze3 again if beating a Paragon gave 4 points instead of 1.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
Okay so per your logic there will now be no divisions in boxing, a lightweight can go up against a heavyweight! Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
If a lightweight want's to win the heavyweight title he should expect to fight heavyweights.
What you, and may others, won't understand is that we're all in the same league and fighting for the same rewards.
The heavyweight title being gladiator's circuit in which case I agree. However, the fact that we can get matched with paragons who sandbag while we're in bronze is ridiculous.
What you don't understand is that what you think the objective of the game mode is, is not what Kabam have in mind. They don't want Paragon fighting Cavalier, they don't want Thronebreaker fighting Uncollected, hence they're changing the matchmaking system once again very soon. You're wrong
Their intentions don't matter, only their actions do. They put everyone in the same tier and gave everyone the same rewards. Don't be mad a people manipulation their terrible system to get the the level they should be at.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
Okay so per your logic there will now be no divisions in boxing, a lightweight can go up against a heavyweight! Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
If a lightweight want's to win the heavyweight title he should expect to fight heavyweights.
What you, and may others, won't understand is that we're all in the same league and fighting for the same rewards.
The heavyweight title being gladiator's circuit in which case I agree. However, the fact that we can get matched with paragons who sandbag while we're in bronze is ridiculous.
What you don't understand is that what you think the objective of the game mode is, is not what Kabam have in mind. They don't want Paragon fighting Cavalier, they don't want Thronebreaker fighting Uncollected, hence they're changing the matchmaking system once again very soon. You're wrong
Their intentions don't matter, only their actions do. They put everyone in the same tier and gave everyone the same rewards. Don't be mad a people manipulation their terrible system to get the the level they should be at.
I'm not mad at people for doing it, only replying to the few of you who are defending sandbagging and trying to act like it isn't a scummy thing to do and acting like it's a valid strategy when on every single competition in the world it's literally cheating. Like I said in a previous post, enjoy exploiting this flawed system while you still can cause soon all paragons and thronebreakers who have been getting rewards for free are actually going to have to fight for them.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
There is no rating in VT so matching by rating there basically just means match based on whatever tier of the track you're currently in. There isn't a way to manipulate that as you can't lower your tier.
You keep saying that, and I'm going to keep repeating that whenever someone suggests not matching by deck I'm going to assume they mean match by ELO, because I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt they aren't suggesting matching purely by tier, because that's ridiculous.
However, I'm all for matching everyone randomly within track as well, because it simply means everyone with gigantic roster will simply obliterate everyone in the process of moving up through the tracks. But this will never happen, because the developers are game developers, not a lunatic competition committee, and they need to make a game mode where 98% of their players don't get consistently destroyed by the veterans every season and decide to quit the mode altogether. This particular option I don't need to spend too much time considering the ramifications of, because if they were to implement that one the mode won't be around long enough for it to be worth spending time theorycrafting.
Then separate the progression levels. Putting everyone on the same track but trying to segregate by matching decks is just asinine bc if there's one sure thing with gamers, it's that there's always a large portion of them that are completely okay with manipulating things to go in their favor. Instead of wasting all this time trying to figure out how to match decks with the least amount of player manipulation possible, just separate the players to begin with, make matching random so it can't be manipulated, and be done with it. Random matching is only bad for casuals when you do something as dumb as putting everyone in the same pool with the same starting point.
Strictly for discussion purposes, it is my time to waste. But in terms of what I would do if I was in charge, I already posted that: I would simply rate decks by their highest CR champ in the deck. And then I would call it a day. It seems to solve all the problems I think are problems, and doesn't introduce any new problems that I think are problems. For me, that would be Miller time.
Think again. There was a thread earlier today and a few previously from early thronebreakers complaining about matching only paragons in the gladiator circuit and not being able to win. These threads will still keep cropping up everyday with any matching related to deck. Or do you suppose matching in GC also be based off their highest CR?
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
Okay so per your logic there will now be no divisions in boxing, a lightweight can go up against a heavyweight! Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
If a lightweight want's to win the heavyweight title he should expect to fight heavyweights.
What you, and may others, won't understand is that we're all in the same league and fighting for the same rewards.
The heavyweight title being gladiator's circuit in which case I agree. However, the fact that we can get matched with paragons who sandbag while we're in bronze is ridiculous.
What you don't understand is that what you think the objective of the game mode is, is not what Kabam have in mind. They don't want Paragon fighting Cavalier, they don't want Thronebreaker fighting Uncollected, hence they're changing the matchmaking system once again very soon. You're wrong
Their intentions don't matter, only their actions do. They put everyone in the same tier and gave everyone the same rewards. Don't be mad a people manipulation their terrible system to get the the level they should be at.
People shouldn't be at that level if they have to manipulate the system to get there. That's hypocrisy. The difference is, one side is simply relying on the existing system for Matches. The other side is perversing it.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
I think a lot of people are operating under a misconception, that they can simply analogize between AW and BG and state without actually thinking about it carefully that BG should match purely on rating, given the lessons learned with alliance war matching on other criteria besides rating. But that fails to take into account a very critical difference between AW and BG. AW has a fixed season.
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
There is no rating in VT so matching by rating there basically just means match based on whatever tier of the track you're currently in. There isn't a way to manipulate that as you can't lower your tier.
You keep saying that, and I'm going to keep repeating that whenever someone suggests not matching by deck I'm going to assume they mean match by ELO, because I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt they aren't suggesting matching purely by tier, because that's ridiculous.
However, I'm all for matching everyone randomly within track as well, because it simply means everyone with gigantic roster will simply obliterate everyone in the process of moving up through the tracks. But this will never happen, because the developers are game developers, not a lunatic competition committee, and they need to make a game mode where 98% of their players don't get consistently destroyed by the veterans every season and decide to quit the mode altogether. This particular option I don't need to spend too much time considering the ramifications of, because if they were to implement that one the mode won't be around long enough for it to be worth spending time theorycrafting.
Matching by tier, where everyone is fighting for the same rewards and each win rewards the same points regardless of title is not ridiculous. Kabam putting everyone in the same tier to start and not awarding more points for beating higher players is what is actually ridiculous.
There seems like a new thread every day from some Cav or TB who is pissed because they got the the GC and can't win a match. Those threads are annoying because of how much harder it is for Paragons to get there when it should be the opposite. I have a ~80% win rate and even with that it was a slog to get out of the VT.
I'd be 100% fine with only matching Paragons in Bronze3 again if beating a Paragon gave 4 points instead of 1.
I'd actually be 100% fine with all the weird suggestions being offered on the forums, because I know they are all exploitable. While I will suggest options for making it the least exploitable possible while still making the mode sufficiently broadly engaging that it won't go into maintenance mode, past experience tells me there's no way to convince people when a match algorithm is bad. My attitude is that if the devs decide to take my suggestion, I'd be fine with that, and if they decide to do something dumb, I'm also fine with that.
As far as I'm concerned, given my experience with BG, there are a couple of things I won't do as I find them unethical. For example, I will not construct a top heavy deck that has super high champs at the top and super low champs at the bottom, trying to match against players with moderate strength decks and hoping the random draw allows them to match their strongest champs against far weaker ones. Unless Kabam fully endorses this as an acceptable deck strategy, that's off the table for me. But aside from such things, if Kabam chooses to implement any of the match algorithms I keep reading on the forums, I won't complain. I will simply optimize my way past them.
BGs has enough frustrating oddities as it is. Outside of things I decide for myself are unethical, my sole responsibility is to do whatever it takes to win, given whatever rules the game decides to implement. And if people want to suggest mode changes that will make that task easier, I'm fine with that sort of meta-gaming.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
Okay so per your logic there will now be no divisions in boxing, a lightweight can go up against a heavyweight! Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
If a lightweight want's to win the heavyweight title he should expect to fight heavyweights.
What you, and may others, won't understand is that we're all in the same league and fighting for the same rewards.
The heavyweight title being gladiator's circuit in which case I agree. However, the fact that we can get matched with paragons who sandbag while we're in bronze is ridiculous.
What you don't understand is that what you think the objective of the game mode is, is not what Kabam have in mind. They don't want Paragon fighting Cavalier, they don't want Thronebreaker fighting Uncollected, hence they're changing the matchmaking system once again very soon. You're wrong
Their intentions don't matter, only their actions do. They put everyone in the same tier and gave everyone the same rewards. Don't be mad a people manipulation their terrible system to get the the level they should be at.
People shouldn't be at that level if they have to manipulate the system to get there. That's hypocrisy. The difference is, one side is simply relying on the existing system for Matches. The other side is perversing it.
You say that because you have no idea how it is for a high level player to slog through the GC.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
Okay so per your logic there will now be no divisions in boxing, a lightweight can go up against a heavyweight! Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
If a lightweight want's to win the heavyweight title he should expect to fight heavyweights.
What you, and may others, won't understand is that we're all in the same league and fighting for the same rewards.
The heavyweight title being gladiator's circuit in which case I agree. However, the fact that we can get matched with paragons who sandbag while we're in bronze is ridiculous.
What you don't understand is that what you think the objective of the game mode is, is not what Kabam have in mind. They don't want Paragon fighting Cavalier, they don't want Thronebreaker fighting Uncollected, hence they're changing the matchmaking system once again very soon. You're wrong
Their intentions don't matter, only their actions do. They put everyone in the same tier and gave everyone the same rewards. Don't be mad a people manipulation their terrible system to get the the level they should be at.
People shouldn't be at that level if they have to manipulate the system to get there. That's hypocrisy. The difference is, one side is simply relying on the existing system for Matches. The other side is perversing it.
You say that because you have no idea how it is for a high level player to slog through the GC.
Oh, I'm aware how it works. That's how it's supposed to be. The higher you go, the slower progression moves. That's true within any game I can think of.
This is me getting all the benefits from sandbagging and “cheating” everyone else.
Ended up with four 2s champs in my fighting deck. Pretty sure my opponent was ok with me “cheating” 🤷🏻♂️
You get rewarded for losses from Kabam right now if you only play three matches. Your opponent's choice was take the easy win or forfeit and give you the win you're gaming the system to get. I'd have taken the easy fight and reported you after. Kabam should ban you from the game. Full stop.
Sigh, this is why reporting modders is so hard when they have to look at so many reports from people on things they don’t like versus actual cheating.
Sandbagging is cheating. Period. They belong in the same basket as modders. Both are a blight to the game mode and experience.
This is so wrong. If you're in the same tier as someone you should be fair game. If you can't beat someone with half a roster you don't deserve to be in a tier with them. Kabam artificially propelling low accounts into higher tiers that they don't belong in hurts everyone.
If you need to purposefully put half a roster to be in the tier you are in, you don’t deserve to be in a tier with those people
This post doesn't make any sense.
How so? If you have to purposely lower you deck rating to verse opponents way weaker than you and climb up the ladder, you definitely don't deserve to be in whatever tier your in because you're essentially cheating your way in when most people had to verse people just as strong as them and didn't get the wins handed to them just like that
You make no sense. If you can beat someone in your tier with half a deck, how is it that you don't belong in that tier? Low players not getting matched with bigger accounts in their same tier just artificially promotes those low players and stagnates the bigger players. Eventually, you get low players in tiers where they have to play big accounts and get stuck.
Everyone should be fair game within each tier.
You're the one that makes no sense dude. How on Earth are you even asking a question like that do you have any critical thinking skills whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you, if you have 15 rank 3 6* and 15 1* and you get matched with someone who doesn't even have a maxed out 5* yet how exactly do you expect them to win? It's a free win for you no matter what (unless you draft all 1* which is highly unlikely). Reason: their champs will be so low they won't be able to ko any of your defenders while you on the other hand will be able to ko all of his defenders with easy because your champs' stats will be miles above theirs.
So then per your logic weaker players should not be in gold on alliance wars, they should only be in bronze! Do you imagine how messed up AWs would be if we used your logic of "everyone should be fair game"? There's a reason this isn't a thing.
Not necessarily, that could easily be fixed by making it so only Thronebreakers and above can get into gladiator's circuit.
No, that's not how competitive modes work my guy.
You're not understanding BGs or AW.
If someone doesn't have a maxed out 5* they shouldn't be in the same tier as someone with a full r3 deck. And if they somehow make it to tier level, they should expect to get matched with that person. That's my whole point. Deck strength should never play a part in matchmaking ever.
In AW, different tiers of allys get different multipliers. They tried the current BG matchmaking in AW for one season and it was a disaster. Low allys finished in Masters because they just kept beating other low allys and top allys ended up in Gold because they only faced other top allys.
Any system where a low account can artificially be propelled above a big account, because they avoid playing those accounts, is wrong. This mode should be about skill not matchmaking.
Okay so per your logic there will now be no divisions in boxing, a lightweight can go up against a heavyweight! Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
If a lightweight want's to win the heavyweight title he should expect to fight heavyweights.
What you, and may others, won't understand is that we're all in the same league and fighting for the same rewards.
The heavyweight title being gladiator's circuit in which case I agree. However, the fact that we can get matched with paragons who sandbag while we're in bronze is ridiculous.
What you don't understand is that what you think the objective of the game mode is, is not what Kabam have in mind. They don't want Paragon fighting Cavalier, they don't want Thronebreaker fighting Uncollected, hence they're changing the matchmaking system once again very soon. You're wrong
Their intentions don't matter, only their actions do. They put everyone in the same tier and gave everyone the same rewards. Don't be mad a people manipulation their terrible system to get the the level they should be at.
People shouldn't be at that level if they have to manipulate the system to get there. That's hypocrisy. The difference is, one side is simply relying on the existing system for Matches. The other side is perversing it.
You say that because you have no idea how it is for a high level player to slog through the GC.
Yes, it's obviously going to be very hard what did you expect? GC is meant for top players as it should be
Forgive me for not understanding how you sandbag. Are you not just randomly matched with others in the same tier as you?
I've worked my way to plat 1 and am really enjoying the mode. I find that I play against people with weaker rosters as much as those with rosters far superior to my own.
One thing I'm noticing about all of the comments about flawed matchmaking is that people seem to always make a comment that they're facing a Paragon when they shouldn't or that the person has so many more R4's than them so they shouldn't match. At no point does anyone ever seem to mention that both skill and strategy are massive components in the mode and have a very significant effect on your success within the mode. Someone out there is the worst Paragon player. To have the game mode be fair to them, they need to face players with smaller rosters. And on the other side of the spectrum, there are elite players who may or may not be using baby/alt accounts who could mop the floor with anyone of even deck strength. If running all 4 Stars (or Sandbagging) can allow people to face people with smaller deck ratings, everyone will end up doing it and the result will be that people who have genuinely smaller decks will win even less than they do now. If you can intentionally manipulate your matchups to have "more" success, why do you now think that the people who are still better than you won't be doing the same thing?
I don't want to try and build a better house than a Carpenter just because neither of us get power tools. I don't want try to outdraw a graphic designer just because we both only have pencils.
An independent game mode rating just makes it so you are far more likely to face someone who is having the same level of success as you. Stop advocating for Deck Rating to be the driving criteria because that can be easily manipulated.
Comments
Constantly? I made one post, ONE post about having unfair matchups what are you in about? You're weirdly obsessed man go touch some grass.
Of course I tried it genius what else was I supposed to do? Sit there and keep watching as thronebreakers and paragons did it to me preventing me from getting points?
To gain an advantage? Did you read my reply at all? I tried it to see if my rating was low enough I'd get people who were at my level because nobody could've possibly been below me all I have is maxed out 4* lol. I also never said I wouldn't do it in general, what I said was I wouldn't do it just to get easy matches and get my rewards quick, which isn't what I was trying to do because for the tenth time my roster is at the bottom, you have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Cause I had no choice, the others did, do you not see the difference in "not having a choice" and "having one". It's like talking to a wall, you're malding this bad you can't even process a sentence.
It wouldn't have worked for me because I'm at the bottom, I was fully aware of that so I knew it wouldn't harm anyone cause I was already at the bottom, and I wasn't wrong.
I'm not triggered lmao you're the one that's been going after me non stop for weeks now, every single time you see me in the forums you just reply with some L take and think you really did something. You have issues, go work on them
Do you not see how flawed that is? That's what you're essentially saying.
So it's unfair for you then but when stronger alliance face weaker alliances who don't stand a chance it's not fair. You're biased and it shows.
Right what skill? The skill of throwing 15 nearly maxed out 6* in your deck, face someone who barely has rank 4 5* and automatically win? You can't be serious
In a world where we match alliances based purely on rating, and ignoring things like alliance shells and other forms of rating manipulation, there's no advantage to losing because there are only twelve wars in a season. In effect, every loss is one less win. For the most part winning has an advantage and losing has a disadvantage.
However, that's not true in BG, at least not in the Victory track. In the Victory track you are rewarded for wins, but you aren't penalized for losses, because the number of matches is not fixed. My rating relative to everyone else has basically zero impact on my rewards. What matters in the Victory track is wins in a row. Three losses followed by three wins is far more valuable than three pairs of win/loss sequences. So if BG matched purely by rating, the best possible strategy would be to deliberately lose three in a row - or six, or twelve, or however many it takes to bottom out rating - and then proceed to win three in a row against much weaker competition. There's absolutely no penalty for doing this, except the energy it takes to do it which is a trivial (and for some basically zero) expense.
If you ignore deck in the victory track, I can arrange to have an arbitrarily strong deck and arbitrarily weak rating, which guarantees me wins. In fact, this would be a much stronger strategy than sandbagging is now.
If the objection to sandbagging is that it allows players to seek matches with weaker players because they can manipulate deck strength, the problem with matching by rating alone is that at least in the Victory track rating is equally vulnerable to manipulation.
To be candid, it would be in my best interests if the devs make this mistake and set matching purely by rating. if BG matched by rating rather than deck strength, I'd have cleared Vibranium easily by now.
1. Make matching completely random within the same tier. Anyone is fair game within the given tier.
2. Eliminate victory track and objectives altogether. You get nominal trophy tokens and elder marks for each win and there are rewards for end of season based on where you place. This gives motivation/incentive for people to try to win. You move up the leader board by winning and you match those closest to your rating to win. There is no benefit to tanking your rating except to collect easy wins and get trophy tokens you get for victory.
What you, and may others, won't understand is that we're all in the same league and fighting for the same rewards.
However, I'm all for matching everyone randomly within track as well, because it simply means everyone with gigantic roster will simply obliterate everyone in the process of moving up through the tracks. But this will never happen, because the developers are game developers, not a lunatic competition committee, and they need to make a game mode where 98% of their players don't get consistently destroyed by the veterans every season and decide to quit the mode altogether. This particular option I don't need to spend too much time considering the ramifications of, because if they were to implement that one the mode won't be around long enough for it to be worth spending time theorycrafting.
Let me race u to the corner … here is some running shoes…. I’m driving there. Let’s see who wins. Bruh…..
What you don't understand is that what you think the objective of the game mode is, is not what Kabam have in mind. They don't want Paragon fighting Cavalier, they don't want Thronebreaker fighting Uncollected, hence they're changing the matchmaking system once again very soon. You're wrong
There seems like a new thread every day from some Cav or TB who is pissed because they got the the GC and can't win a match. Those threads are annoying because of how much harder it is for Paragons to get there when it should be the opposite. I have a ~80% win rate and even with that it was a slog to get out of the VT.
I'd be 100% fine with only matching Paragons in Bronze3 again if beating a Paragon gave 4 points instead of 1.
As far as I'm concerned, given my experience with BG, there are a couple of things I won't do as I find them unethical. For example, I will not construct a top heavy deck that has super high champs at the top and super low champs at the bottom, trying to match against players with moderate strength decks and hoping the random draw allows them to match their strongest champs against far weaker ones. Unless Kabam fully endorses this as an acceptable deck strategy, that's off the table for me. But aside from such things, if Kabam chooses to implement any of the match algorithms I keep reading on the forums, I won't complain. I will simply optimize my way past them.
BGs has enough frustrating oddities as it is. Outside of things I decide for myself are unethical, my sole responsibility is to do whatever it takes to win, given whatever rules the game decides to implement. And if people want to suggest mode changes that will make that task easier, I'm fine with that sort of meta-gaming.
I've worked my way to plat 1 and am really enjoying the mode. I find that I play against people with weaker rosters as much as those with rosters far superior to my own.
I don't want to try and build a better house than a Carpenter just because neither of us get power tools.
I don't want try to outdraw a graphic designer just because we both only have pencils.
An independent game mode rating just makes it so you are far more likely to face someone who is having the same level of success as you. Stop advocating for Deck Rating to be the driving criteria because that can be easily manipulated.