How should Kabam fix sandbagging?

Sandbagging is one of the biggest issues faced by the community in battlegrounds. While kabam is devising their methods , how does the community think they should fix the problem?

How should Kabam fix sandbagging? 142 votes

Matchmaking based on prestige only
22%
Kabam MiikeVuskaDeadmaddyFredhorst23yuwJohn757MysterioanggafkFrenchy87Bugmat78EtherionGodDoug4theWinCtfz35Thoye3Webhead055SaltE_Wenis69SpecMNogood22ElwindMamu91 32 votes
Matchmaking based on progression only
19%
Bpn88855Mhd20034Darth_StewieBluestoneEB54ubergamer11UnobtainiumClawsCap366İSTANBULTony886designsodaMaqsoodGladsJust_grindingBeastDadBattleHawk76MasterzxProRNCKCrow9074Giantslayer88 28 votes
Ban 3* 2* and 1* champs in battlegrounds
46%
DL864SnakeEyes69SuperChronabuffajrTendersquadsmy168CondemnedToeRichTheManVergeman78causticRayhanIshaqueTotal_Domin01SyndicatedkikiFurieuxKerneastusharNairKillSwitchScopeotoe987RakeYoungIKON 66 votes
Giving warnings and eventually banning sandbaggers
11%
Eugene_VirtuosoItsClobberinTimeWildblue33330ishMukesh5445TreevorChrisPOOUltragamerRealWizardThe_man001TruthseekerRustyoneilbigzakinnitArchaic999ntclpzKLZ 16 votes
«13

Comments

  • Gotham28Gotham28 Posts: 3
    Ban 3* 2* and 1* champs in battlegrounds
    _Pez_ said:

    Gotham28 said:

    _Pez_ said:

    If you are going to do a poll on this, There should really be an option for matchmaking based on BG tier/league only. It's one of the end results a lot of people want even if you dont

    So you're telling me matchmaking should should be based ONLY on the rank you are at? Well then good luck with your biggest champ a 4star r4 iron patriot against my r4 sig200 Weapon X . Should be fair right? since we both are at bronze 3
    My opinion doesn't really matter, it's one of the main proposals people have been suggesting on all these matchmaking posts, if you are doing a poll it should have all the possible outcomes and not be biased to your wishes.
    I didnt include that option because it makes no sense. Think about bro, if matchmaking was based on rank only that would mean all the bigger accounts instantly have a HUGH advantage. No matter how skilled you are if the opponents roster is 10x better than yours you cant win. Its going to be shitshow and only whales will be playing bgs at that point
  • So I’m more awake now and realize this thread is about sandbagging and not modding. I think part of the main problem is everyone is lumped into bronze and forced to crawl out of the giant dog pool of that. I still don’t have the answer to the solution but don’t think it is a bannable offense at the moment. Maybe warnings and then temp bg ban if anything but not a game ban
  • ThePharcideThePharcide Posts: 58
    Ban 3* 2* and 1* champs in battlegrounds
    Dragoon81 said:

    None of the above, change wins needed to not be consecutive and then just leave it be. If people didn’t need to win consecutive matches in a row they wouldn’t fill as big of a need for these tactics. This makes getting through the victory track a matter of time and effort then the Circuit match making should just be based on your points earned and nothing else so that it would level it’s self out.

    This wont happen. They sell shields to prevent a loss of progression, at the cost of units and people would buy units rather than grind thus spending real money. While they do not make bank on this, any change that would see a dip, no matter how small, they will not even consider. And no I am not saying they are evil for doing so, just stating facts.
  • Pseudo_19Pseudo_19 Posts: 382 ★★
    edited November 2022
    Ban 3* 2* and 1* champs in battlegrounds

    It is simple.

    Over a certain progression you can't use 1/2/3/4 stars. There is no reason as a TB/Paragon you should be using 2*'s in your deck. None whatsoever. I can see UC still using 4*'s and to a certain extent Cavs.

    Or lock BG's strictly to 4*'s. But then you have older accounts having an advantage as we have deeper 4* rosters, than some of the newer players. But then Kabam can add 4* crystals into the bracket rewards.

    It is going to come down to ALL or NONE in terms of champions being used in BG. All 4* or nothing under a certain threshold.

    You want to only use 4* champs for BG? So I get punished as a paragon player because I only have a total of 10 4* champs at max level and rank. That logic doesn’t make sense. Maybe someday with the success of BGs, kabam can make a separate BG mode where everyone gets access to every champ in the game at 5* rank 5 sig 200 and chose 30 champs for your deck. That way it’ll be a game mode based off skill alone being that you choose your roster based off the current meta. As of now, every single person is playing for the exact same rewards. It should be matchmaking off of related account rating like base hero rating not prestige. I’ve seen theories that matchmaking is based off current AW rating which could be decently fair as well. But their are plenty of big accounts in alliances that don’t care too much for war and only run 1-2 groups to stay somewhere in gold. I wouldn’t mind another BG’s mode where everyone has access to maxed out 5*’s kinda like what they used to do for summoner showdown.

    PS. Same rewards? Fair play for all summoners!
  • Dragoon81Dragoon81 Posts: 147 ★★

    Dragoon81 said:

    None of the above, change wins needed to not be consecutive and then just leave it be. If people didn’t need to win consecutive matches in a row they wouldn’t fill as big of a need for these tactics. This makes getting through the victory track a matter of time and effort then the Circuit match making should just be based on your points earned and nothing else so that it would level it’s self out.

    This wont happen. They sell shields to prevent a loss of progression, at the cost of units and people would buy units rather than grind thus spending real money. While they do not make bank on this, any change that would see a dip, no matter how small, they will not even consider. And no I am not saying they are evil for doing so, just stating facts.
    Oh I know it won’t happen but any other method will just bring more complaints. Problem is if they kill sandbagging, a lot of the sang baggers are probably spending more money on this game than those not. As it is higher tier accounts sand bagging. Thus in my opinion the moment they kill sandbagging they are going to upset that side of the house. It’s all about money and I bet more than anything they are looking into those sandbaggers to see what they spend overall.
  • Deamon1337Deamon1337 Posts: 79
    Ban 3* 2* and 1* champs in battlegrounds
    Id say sum the top 15 rated champs in the deck and then match with similar rating.
    rn i think its all 30
  • WollefWollef Posts: 34
    Since around 2 days, all my opponents in the battleground have way more powerful characters than me....before the update I feel it's was fair enough but now not really equal. What Kabam changed in the matching???!!
  • ThePharcideThePharcide Posts: 58
    Ban 3* 2* and 1* champs in battlegrounds
    Pseudo_19 said:

    It is simple.

    Over a certain progression you can't use 1/2/3/4 stars. There is no reason as a TB/Paragon you should be using 2*'s in your deck. None whatsoever. I can see UC still using 4*'s and to a certain extent Cavs.

    Or lock BG's strictly to 4*'s. But then you have older accounts having an advantage as we have deeper 4* rosters, than some of the newer players. But then Kabam can add 4* crystals into the bracket rewards.

    It is going to come down to ALL or NONE in terms of champions being used in BG. All 4* or nothing under a certain threshold.

    You want to only use 4* champs for BG? So I get punished as a paragon player because I only have a total of 10 4* champs at max level and rank. That logic doesn’t make sense.

    Maybe someday with the success of BGs, kabam can make a separate BG mode where everyone gets access to every champ in the game at 5* rank 5 sig 200 and chose 30 champs for your deck. That way it’ll be a game mode based off skill alone being that you choose your roster based off the current meta.

    As of now, every single person is playing for the exact same rewards. It should be matchmaking off of related account rating like base hero rating not prestige. I’ve seen theories that matchmaking is based off current AW rating which could be decently fair as well.

    But their are plenty of big accounts in alliances that don’t care too much for war and only run 1-2 groups to stay somewhere in gold. I wouldn’t mind another BG’s mode where everyone has access to maxed out 5*’s kinda like what they used to do for summoner showdown.
    Fixed your spacing for ya.

    So UC/Cavs should be punished because a Paragon has to manipulate their deck to get an advantage? Because they are so good right......but cant beat players in a fair fight. If this mode did anything it highlighted the TB/Paragon players who suck so bad they have to manipulate the mode to flex their ego.

    And as I stated older accounts would have a leg up as they have more and why Kabam should make 4*'s as part of the rewards. But since TB/Paragon have no need for 4*'s why allow them in BG'?

    It comes down to finding a middle ground. I think everyone having access to the same champs at level/sig would be the best way to show skill/knowledge. But then you're going to have people complain that people who don't own a champ gets an advantage or its unfair they can use the best champs.
  • BazzingaaaBazzingaaa Posts: 234 ★★★
    Matchmaking based on prestige only
    Base it on the deck strength of the top 15 champs, rather than all 30.
    This will make sandbagging redundant.
  • WollefWollef Posts: 34

    Wollef said:

    Since around 2 days, all my opponents in the battleground have way more powerful characters than me....before the update I feel it's was fair enough but now not really equal. What Kabam changed in the matching???!!

    You are competing for same rewards as them as well as trying to advance to the next tier like them. You want easier matchups so you can advance while those stronger than you are stuck in lower tiers with less rewards than you?
    I feel you didn't catch at all what I said and extrapolate, because I still advance anyway, and im not complaining because it's too hard.

    I write about how the matching since 2 days it's WAY different than BEFORE. Before the update all my opponent's characters was really close to mine in terms of power ratings. Now it's not that anymore, in past months I never played against someone who will have a characters with a power ratings over 17k, now it's all the time.... that feel new or something was changed....
  • K00shMaanK00shMaan Posts: 1,184 ★★★★
    Gotham28 said:

    _Pez_ said:

    If you are going to do a poll on this, There should really be an option for matchmaking based on BG tier/league only. It's one of the end results a lot of people want even if you dont

    So you're telling me matchmaking should should be based ONLY on the rank you are at? Well then good luck with your biggest champ a 4star r4 iron patriot against my r4 sig200 Weapon X . Should be fair right? since we both are at bronze 3
    Yes we are. But we are also saying that these ranks that we get to each season should mean something for the upcoming season. If someone reached Celestial in Gladiator's Circuit they should never be sent back to Bronze 3. Even a new Paragon shouldn't be facing those people. AW has figured this out by having a permanent Rating that never resets. A lot of issues with matchmaking can be solved by having progress made in the previous season carrying over to the next to some degree.

    I think that the Victory Track should be removed and basically replaced with a expanded Gladiators Circuit. Each win would provide rating instead of Tokens. Once you earn enough rating you get your milestone reward and your rating cannot fall below that value. As your rating climbs you achieve all the milestones and then reach what is the current iteration of gladiators circuit where there are no more milestones and the nodes change. Bonus rating can be applied when you go on a win streak to help people who don't belong climb out of lower tiers faster.

    Progression based matchmaking is bad to because someone out there is the best Thronebreaker. They might win 70+% of their matches if they only face other Thronebreakers. That person has almost no incentive to ever become Paragon because when they do, their success in the game mode immediately plummets.

    Matchmaking based on Deck Prestige is fair in the sense that your individual matchups will be even but it doesn't really make sense that you can use a deck of Meta 3* or 4* champs to earn rewards designed to take your 6* Champions to Rank 4 and beyond. Kabam has indicated that you should be using at least 5* to earn these rewards by locking lower rarities out of the content for the last 3 Acts of Story Content. You should be encouraged to rank up the best champions you can to get the best rewards. It shouldn't be possible by just ranking up all of the 3*s in the game and being skilled. It devalues the rarer assets that this game has to offer.
  • Pseudo_19Pseudo_19 Posts: 382 ★★
    Ban 3* 2* and 1* champs in battlegrounds

    Pseudo_19 said:

    It is simple.

    Over a certain progression you can't use 1/2/3/4 stars. There is no reason as a TB/Paragon you should be using 2*'s in your deck. None whatsoever. I can see UC still using 4*'s and to a certain extent Cavs.

    Or lock BG's strictly to 4*'s. But then you have older accounts having an advantage as we have deeper 4* rosters, than some of the newer players. But then Kabam can add 4* crystals into the bracket rewards.

    It is going to come down to ALL or NONE in terms of champions being used in BG. All 4* or nothing under a certain threshold.

    You want to only use 4* champs for BG? So I get punished as a paragon player because I only have a total of 10 4* champs at max level and rank. That logic doesn’t make sense.

    Maybe someday with the success of BGs, kabam can make a separate BG mode where everyone gets access to every champ in the game at 5* rank 5 sig 200 and chose 30 champs for your deck. That way it’ll be a game mode based off skill alone being that you choose your roster based off the current meta.

    As of now, every single person is playing for the exact same rewards. It should be matchmaking off of related account rating like base hero rating not prestige. I’ve seen theories that matchmaking is based off current AW rating which could be decently fair as well.

    But their are plenty of big accounts in alliances that don’t care too much for war and only run 1-2 groups to stay somewhere in gold. I wouldn’t mind another BG’s mode where everyone has access to maxed out 5*’s kinda like what they used to do for summoner showdown.
    Fixed your spacing for ya.

    So UC/Cavs should be punished because a Paragon has to manipulate their deck to get an advantage? Because they are so good right......but cant beat players in a fair fight. If this mode did anything it highlighted the TB/Paragon players who suck so bad they have to manipulate the mode to flex their ego.

    And as I stated older accounts would have a leg up as they have more and why Kabam should make 4*'s as part of the rewards. But since TB/Paragon have no need for 4*'s why allow them in BG'?

    It comes down to finding a middle ground. I think everyone having access to the same champs at level/sig would be the best way to show skill/knowledge. But then you're going to have people complain that people who don't own a champ gets an advantage or its unfair they can use the best champs.
    An easy fix to sandbagging has 2 options, ban 3* champs and below. Or do matchmaking based on the top 20 champs In someone’s deck. If someone sand bags with more than 10 champs they’re bound to be forced to pick up some 2* champs. I say just ban 3* champs and below to stop sandbagging, maybe even 4* champs since that’s how it is for act 6 and up.
  • tufo24tufo24 Posts: 35
    This whole thing is messed up. I don't want to sandbag but sometimes I have to. I'm Thronebreaker with 1 6*r4 champ and don't have many of the ELITE champs as 6* (especially defenders). I come across people with same prestige as me but they have way more r3 and r4's than i do but their 2,3,4 and 5 star champs are not ranked up compared to my balanced roster of maxed out 2,3,4 and 5's. Game sees same PI and thinks it's a good match but his roster blows mine out of the water and doesn't leave much chance. Therefore, I throw in some low champs to balance out my deck's PI, especially knowing that my top defenders will be banned and leave me with either 6*r1 or 5*r4-5 defenders at best.
Sign In or Register to comment.