for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Perhaps the best solution would be to change BG's so as to *NOT* use your own champs.
Everyone get so select their Decks from a common/complete roster of the *SAME* level of champs. ie, all max 4* champs (whether you actually own that champ, or only have them at lower ranks, or not, they will be Max 4* for use in BG)
So everyone builds their Deck of 30 champs from among *ANY* playable champ that exists, all at max 4*.
Your specific Mastery setup (and maybe Relics, that you have within your own roster, but would apply to the basic max 4* champ if you select for your deck) would be the ONLY differences between the 2 players.
Matchmaking would then be based on current advancement thru the BG Tiers, with potentially somewhat also based on your own Prestige and/or summoner Progression (just to avoid very experienced players from matching against newer less skilled players).
And maybe create an AW War Rating style value to players, that would continue from season to season, as a better way to filter matchmaking even if everyone still starts back at Bronze-3 every season.
** Similar to car racing, where “essentially” every car is pretty much identical, it comes down to driving, skill, etc, (and knowledge, and best use, of champs)
A great idea for anyone with a weak roster and who puts minimal effort into game progression but would be pretty much a "slap in the face" for those who have put tons of effort (and/or money) into building up a massive roster.
And can someone please explain to me why low players have this entitlement of thinking they are supposed to have "fair" matches" against similar strength opponents when fighting for same rewards as high up players?
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Not really, most games try and keep the pool open so that anyone that’s going for a set of rewards can match anyone else going for that specific set of rewards.
You’re right that progress typically slows as you get further ahead in a game, but that doesn’t really apply where people compete against each other for the same rewards.
And the only times I can think of where developers step in is when people are finding some way to mess around with the matchmaking/avoiding specific matches (sort of like how Kabam have said if you intentionally try and match with your own secondary account that is punishable).
1. Sandbagging is real and has been for a long time in numerous games. There's very little way around it when it's based on roster strength.
2. Lower level players eventually do hit a ceiling and can't progress beyond that. It's the sandbaggers that can add to their rosters and keep going , gaining advantageous easier matchups early on.
3. The solution needs to be something that doesn't put sections of players at a disadvantage and at the same time discourages sandbagging.
4. Giving a multiplier or higher points to ppl with bigger roster sounds fine but that'll again have to be a very huge change to BGs. Right now the system is built only around Wins.
5. You could argue assigning base points to rosters and ppl starting and matching up with others in the same group, but again, this does not fix sandbagging.
My suggestion would be to consider only the TOP 15 champs to determine the roster strength variable. That'll eliminate the lopsided rosters.
We only need 7 champs to fight each round, so 50% of the roster strength (15/30) is good enough for that determination.
That'll also ensure that ppl with 10- 15 r4 champs and other r2/1 champs don't get matches with players who only have 3 or 4 r4 champs.
To deal with players who are using only 3* or 2* champs, they should implement something like in incursions, gate the rewards based on progression level and roster strength.
A 3* roster shouldn't be able to claim paragon rewards in the store.
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Your complaint was that they accelerate progress to get to the top for the "best" Players, but in BGs, the best Players are based on their performance in BGs. Not who has a higher Account. There's an irony in that argument. However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Your complaint was that they accelerate progress to get to the top for the "best" Players, but in BGs, the best Players are based on their performance in BGs. Not who has a higher Account. There's an irony in that argument. However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say best players based on their performance and then go on to say matchups need to be fair and based on account strength/prestige?
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Your complaint was that they accelerate progress to get to the top for the "best" Players, but in BGs, the best Players are based on their performance in BGs. Not who has a higher Account. There's an irony in that argument. However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say best players based on their performance and then go on to say matchups need to be fair and based on account strength/prestige?
Performance within Matches that the system appropriates based on their results. Not hand-picked by people who are bitter they're in the same pool.
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Your complaint was that they accelerate progress to get to the top for the "best" Players, but in BGs, the best Players are based on their performance in BGs. Not who has a higher Account. There's an irony in that argument. However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Again, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. This post makes even less sense then the first one.
Please, name all the competitive pvp games that starts everyone at 0 each season w/o any multipliers or advantages to get the best players to the top as quickly as possible.
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Your complaint was that they accelerate progress to get to the top for the "best" Players, but in BGs, the best Players are based on their performance in BGs. Not who has a higher Account. There's an irony in that argument. However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say best players based on their performance and then go on to say matchups need to be fair and based on account strength/prestige?
Performance within Matches that the system appropriates based on their results. Not hand-picked by people who are bitter they're in the same pool.
Let's apply that "logic" to the real world.
Here are 6 football games that were played on Thanksgiving last week. Weequahic 68, Shabazz 8 Dumont 17, Tenafly 0 Haddonfield 45, Haddon Heights 18 Minnasota 33, New England 26 Dallas 28, New York 20 Buffalo 28, Detroit 25
Assuming all teams were in the same league, like Kabam has done with BGs, your "logic" would mean that Weequahic, Dumont and Haddonfield are all better and should progress further than New England, New York and Detroit. Does that make any sense to you?
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Your complaint was that they accelerate progress to get to the top for the "best" Players, but in BGs, the best Players are based on their performance in BGs. Not who has a higher Account. There's an irony in that argument. However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say best players based on their performance and then go on to say matchups need to be fair and based on account strength/prestige?
Performance within Matches that the system appropriates based on their results. Not hand-picked by people who are bitter they're in the same pool.
Let's apply that "logic" to the real world.
Here are 6 football games that were played on Thanksgiving last week. Weequahic 68, Shabazz 8 Dumont 17, Tenafly 0 Haddonfield 45, Haddon Heights 18 Minnasota 33, New England 26 Dallas 28, New York 20 Buffalo 28, Detroit 25
Assuming all teams were in the same league, like Kabam has done with BGs, your "logic" would mean that Weequahic, Dumont and Haddonfield are all better and should progress further than New England, New York and Detroit. Does that make any sense to you?
You keep asserting that because they're in the same "league", people should have the right to circumnavigate the system to take them out. You're omitting the fact that the Matches wouldn't happen without people manipulating the system. It wasn't justified when it happened in War, regardless of Prestige, and it isn't right in this system. The difference being this is an entirely different system than War. The effects of that manipulation are much more detrimental. So, no. I'm not buying the same "league" excuse.
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Your complaint was that they accelerate progress to get to the top for the "best" Players, but in BGs, the best Players are based on their performance in BGs. Not who has a higher Account. There's an irony in that argument. However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say best players based on their performance and then go on to say matchups need to be fair and based on account strength/prestige?
Performance within Matches that the system appropriates based on their results. Not hand-picked by people who are bitter they're in the same pool.
Let's apply that "logic" to the real world.
Here are 6 football games that were played on Thanksgiving last week. Weequahic 68, Shabazz 8 Dumont 17, Tenafly 0 Haddonfield 45, Haddon Heights 18 Minnasota 33, New England 26 Dallas 28, New York 20 Buffalo 28, Detroit 25
Assuming all teams were in the same league, like Kabam has done with BGs, your "logic" would mean that Weequahic, Dumont and Haddonfield are all better and should progress further than New England, New York and Detroit. Does that make any sense to you?
You keep asserting that because they're in the same "league", people should have the right to circumnavigate the system to take them out. You're omitting the fact that the Matches wouldn't happen without people manipulating the system. It wasn't justified when it happened in War, regardless of Prestige, and it isn't right in this system. The difference being this is an entirely different system than War. The effects of that manipulation are much more detrimental. So, no. I'm not buying the same "league" excuse.
I think what he’s saying is there shouldn’t be a system to circumvent to begin with. If you’re in gold 2 for example, you fight vs anyone else in gold 2. No factoring in roster, prestige, anything. Just the fact that both players are fighting to reach gold 1. And frankly I agree with that.
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Your complaint was that they accelerate progress to get to the top for the "best" Players, but in BGs, the best Players are based on their performance in BGs. Not who has a higher Account. There's an irony in that argument. However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say best players based on their performance and then go on to say matchups need to be fair and based on account strength/prestige?
Performance within Matches that the system appropriates based on their results. Not hand-picked by people who are bitter they're in the same pool.
Let's apply that "logic" to the real world.
Here are 6 football games that were played on Thanksgiving last week. Weequahic 68, Shabazz 8 Dumont 17, Tenafly 0 Haddonfield 45, Haddon Heights 18 Minnasota 33, New England 26 Dallas 28, New York 20 Buffalo 28, Detroit 25
Assuming all teams were in the same league, like Kabam has done with BGs, your "logic" would mean that Weequahic, Dumont and Haddonfield are all better and should progress further than New England, New York and Detroit. Does that make any sense to you?
You keep asserting that because they're in the same "league", people should have the right to circumnavigate the system to take them out. You're omitting the fact that the Matches wouldn't happen without people manipulating the system. It wasn't justified when it happened in War, regardless of Prestige, and it isn't right in this system. The difference being this is an entirely different system than War. The effects of that manipulation are much more detrimental. So, no. I'm not buying the same "league" excuse.
I think what he’s saying is there shouldn’t be a system to circumvent to begin with. If you’re in gold 2 for example, you fight vs anyone else in gold 2. No factoring in roster, prestige, anything. Just the fact that both players are fighting to reach gold 1. And frankly I agree with that.
Very true - they have created a game mode, where leveling up and roster progression, does not give any advantage. In every other game mode, leveling up, moving from 3*, to 4*, to 5* and then 6*, allows you to progress further in each game modes' content. But not here.
And not only that, but with the loss of tokens, it means BG progression can feel like a battle too far. You can't grind, level, rank up or anything else, through the back to back win set up needed here. Not even shields can help you do it.
So it's shiny and new now, but how many people are going to be playing it in a season or two with this matchmaking and this punishing ladder system. I'm guessing not many.
As I said, it's quite a simple fix. Separate people into 3 Brackets, and adjust the amount of Rewards per Bracket. What bothers me is the sense of entitlement with the idea that because people are in the same pool, stronger Accounts have the right to lower their Matchmaking results just for Wins. That's not any more fair than a Reward structure that is imbalanced. Also, you're supposed to have harder Matches when you're more advanced in the game, not easier ones. It's also easy to judge another based on what would be easy for you, but you can't use your own perspective to judge what's easy for others. People are meant to meet challenges that are appropriate for them. All this talk about lower Champs being easier Matches for other people is irreverent to the fact that they're playing based on their own skill set, against Champs that are challenging enough for where they're at. People have been making Alts for so long with added experience that they actually think it's that easy for people earlier on. Not so.
As I said, it's quite a simple fix. Separate people into 3 Brackets, and adjust the amount of Rewards per Bracket. What bothers me is the sense of entitlement with the idea that because people are in the same pool, stronger Accounts have the right to lower their Matchmaking results just for Wins. That's not any more fair than a Reward structure that is imbalanced. Also, you're supposed to have harder Matches when you're more advanced in the game, not easier ones. It's also easy to judge another based on what would be easy for you, but you can't use your own perspective to judge what's easy for others. People are meant to meet challenges that are appropriate for them. All this talk about lower Champs being easier Matches for other people is irreverent to the fact that they're playing based on their own skill set, against Champs that are challenging enough for where they're at. People have been making Alts for so long with added experience that they actually think it's that easy for people earlier on. Not so.
That also works. But you’ll still get people whining it’s unfair as “paragon/Thronebreaker get all this for x wins but I only get these lesser rewards, how unfair!”
for Victory Track, maybe someone might be able to explain to me why matchmaking can't be based on Number of Rarity y + rank X. Champs. so for example ten Ranks 5 5stars + ten Rank 2 6stars + ten Rank 3 6stars an each roster. Maybe with +/- 3 if at the same time no other account searching for a match is found
Because that punishes people with big rosters and gives lower players much easier tracks to the GC.
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
Actually you're wrong on that. Any game I can think of slows progress the higher you go. It's supposed to be accelerated for people starting out, then gradually tapering down. The opposite would be a perpetual motion machine that would stop anyone lower from getting ahead, but of course that's the goal with sandbagging.
Ugh, what are you even talking about GW? Did you even read my post? I said "competitive" game as in a competition between players, you know like BGs.
Your complaint was that they accelerate progress to get to the top for the "best" Players, but in BGs, the best Players are based on their performance in BGs. Not who has a higher Account. There's an irony in that argument. However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say best players based on their performance and then go on to say matchups need to be fair and based on account strength/prestige?
Performance within Matches that the system appropriates based on their results. Not hand-picked by people who are bitter they're in the same pool.
Let's apply that "logic" to the real world.
Here are 6 football games that were played on Thanksgiving last week. Weequahic 68, Shabazz 8 Dumont 17, Tenafly 0 Haddonfield 45, Haddon Heights 18 Minnasota 33, New England 26 Dallas 28, New York 20 Buffalo 28, Detroit 25
Assuming all teams were in the same league, like Kabam has done with BGs, your "logic" would mean that Weequahic, Dumont and Haddonfield are all better and should progress further than New England, New York and Detroit. Does that make any sense to you?
You keep asserting that because they're in the same "league", people should have the right to circumnavigate the system to take them out. You're omitting the fact that the Matches wouldn't happen without people manipulating the system. It wasn't justified when it happened in War, regardless of Prestige, and it isn't right in this system. The difference being this is an entirely different system than War. The effects of that manipulation are much more detrimental. So, no. I'm not buying the same "league" excuse.
lol, just answer the question. Should Dumont be promoted above the Patriots? It's a simple yes or no.
I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period
Excited to announce that the planned changes to BG Matchmaking didn't work!
Hey Summoners,
So, it appears we jumped the gun with communicating the changes to matchmaking. Full transparency, everything looks like it should be working... but it's not. The team is investigating much deeper into these issues and we're hoping to have answers soon.
Apologies.
Kabam Jax,
I don't understand the idea of matching people with the same title. It should be randomized, right? I don't think uncollected, Cavalie or TB should expect matching people with their own level. If we are in the sam pot, we should have chance to match with other title.
In fact, even Paragon, there are differences in people roster depth. Someone may have just 3 rank 4 and the rest is not so good.
To be fair, it shall be all randomized. Otherwise, you need to split it in to divisions and people could decide which division they want to join.
To give you better picture, could college football team who want to compete in NFL but complain when they are matching with the professional team? Does it make sense?
Lastly, I think Sandbagging is just part of strategy if the matchmaking is not fully randomized.
So why is it that an Uncollected player facing an Uncollected player is them having easy matches but a Paragon facing a Paragon is a tough match? What kind of logic is that?
Because I'm guessing he means a uc player tht just became uc has a vastly smaller deck then one about to become cav while paragon v paragon can be someone with 3 r4's an a mix of r3 r2 even 5/65's while the top end could have almost all r4's now with maybe 5-10 of the best r3's possible the difference at the top is vast very vast
The difference isn't as vast as you think. My deck as UC could be a couple r3 and r4 5* and maxed out 4* while my opponent might have a bunch of 5/65 which I don't even have at all. I've seen UC with pretty stacked up decks (more than 10 5/65). Again, this comparison doesn't make sense, sure there will be a difference but claiming an UC facing another UC is an easy match is just not true, not every match will be easy. Sure it'll be easy for a Paragon but for someone at that level it's really not easy unless your opponent became UC with the help of Unitman which not everyone does.
I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period
Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period
Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
Wrong.
The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period
Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
Wrong.
The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period
Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
Wrong.
The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
Here we have the source of the entitlement.
Sorry, that's just how the works workd.
The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period
Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
Wrong.
The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
Here we have the source of the entitlement.
Sorry, that's just how the works workd.
The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
I agree but this is what makes this whole mode just bad, then they go put the best rewards in the game in it.
I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period
Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
Wrong.
The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
Here we have the source of the entitlement.
Sorry, that's just how the works workd.
The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
I'm 41 years old. I don't need you to tell me how the world works. On one side, you have Players playing the best they can with the Matches the system gives them. They're frustrated that the system is giving them Matches they can't compete with. On the other side, you have people offended that lower Players are in the same pool, and they're going out of their way to take advantage of them by manipulating the mechanics. There's only one entitled side I see.
I don’t think the point is if a UC vs a UC is easier than Paragon vs Paragon. The point is, no matter what account size you have, facing a UC is an easier match than facing a Paragon. For the exact same reward. Period
Absolutely it is, that doesn't mean however that you, as a Paragon, should be facing a ton of UC players in the lower leagues at least, especially since every season we all drop to bronze. That would make the game unplayable the first two weeks for the weaker players, if you're okay with that then that's kinda selfish. Just because you've been playing the game longer doesn't mean you should get a huge headstart over other people who spend money in the game and have as much of a right to enjoy the game mode as much as you, and essentially prevent them from playing the game mode when the season starts. I'm not saying Paragon should never face UC, they should, just not in the lower leagues.
Wrong.
The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
Good, then get that headstart defeating other Paragons since you're so skilled instead of getting it at the cost of stalling the game mode for days for other people. Stop being selfish, this game mode isn't just for Paragons, if that was the case you wouldn't unlock it by becoming UC.
Comments
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
And can someone please explain to me why low players have this entitlement of thinking they are supposed to have "fair" matches" against similar strength opponents when fighting for same rewards as high up players?
You’re right that progress typically slows as you get further ahead in a game, but that doesn’t really apply where people compete against each other for the same rewards.
And the only times I can think of where developers step in is when people are finding some way to mess around with the matchmaking/avoiding specific matches (sort of like how Kabam have said if you intentionally try and match with your own secondary account that is punishable).
1. Sandbagging is real and has been for a long time in numerous games. There's very little way around it when it's based on roster strength.
2. Lower level players eventually do hit a ceiling and can't progress beyond that. It's the sandbaggers that can add to their rosters and keep going , gaining advantageous easier matchups early on.
3. The solution needs to be something that doesn't put sections of players at a disadvantage and at the same time discourages sandbagging.
4. Giving a multiplier or higher points to ppl with bigger roster sounds fine but that'll again have to be a very huge change to BGs. Right now the system is built only around Wins.
5. You could argue assigning base points to rosters and ppl starting and matching up with others in the same group, but again, this does not fix sandbagging.
My suggestion would be to consider only the TOP 15 champs to determine the roster strength variable. That'll eliminate the lopsided rosters.
We only need 7 champs to fight each round, so 50% of the roster strength (15/30) is good enough for that determination.
That'll also ensure that ppl with 10- 15 r4 champs and other r2/1 champs don't get matches with players who only have 3 or 4 r4 champs.
To deal with players who are using only 3* or 2* champs, they should implement something like in incursions, gate the rewards based on progression level and roster strength.
A 3* roster shouldn't be able to claim paragon rewards in the store.
However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Please, name all the competitive pvp games that starts everyone at 0 each season w/o any multipliers or advantages to get the best players to the top as quickly as possible.
Here are 6 football games that were played on Thanksgiving last week.
Weequahic 68, Shabazz 8
Dumont 17, Tenafly 0
Haddonfield 45, Haddon Heights 18
Minnasota 33, New England 26
Dallas 28, New York 20
Buffalo 28, Detroit 25
Assuming all teams were in the same league, like Kabam has done with BGs, your "logic" would mean that Weequahic, Dumont and Haddonfield are all better and should progress further than New England, New York and Detroit. Does that make any sense to you?
If you’re in gold 2 for example, you fight vs anyone else in gold 2. No factoring in roster, prestige, anything. Just the fact that both players are fighting to reach gold 1.
And frankly I agree with that.
And not only that, but with the loss of tokens, it means BG progression can feel like a battle too far. You can't grind, level, rank up or anything else, through the back to back win set up needed here. Not even shields can help you do it.
So it's shiny and new now, but how many people are going to be playing it in a season or two with this matchmaking and this punishing ladder system. I'm guessing not many.
What bothers me is the sense of entitlement with the idea that because people are in the same pool, stronger Accounts have the right to lower their Matchmaking results just for Wins. That's not any more fair than a Reward structure that is imbalanced.
Also, you're supposed to have harder Matches when you're more advanced in the game, not easier ones. It's also easy to judge another based on what would be easy for you, but you can't use your own perspective to judge what's easy for others.
People are meant to meet challenges that are appropriate for them.
All this talk about lower Champs being easier Matches for other people is irreverent to the fact that they're playing based on their own skill set, against Champs that are challenging enough for where they're at. People have been making Alts for so long with added experience that they actually think it's that easy for people earlier on. Not so.
But you’ll still get people whining it’s unfair as “paragon/Thronebreaker get all this for x wins but I only get these lesser rewards, how unfair!”
Sure it'll be easy for a Paragon but for someone at that level it's really not easy unless your opponent became UC with the help of Unitman which not everyone does.
The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
On one side, you have Players playing the best they can with the Matches the system gives them. They're frustrated that the system is giving them Matches they can't compete with.
On the other side, you have people offended that lower Players are in the same pool, and they're going out of their way to take advantage of them by manipulating the mechanics.
There's only one entitled side I see.