Allow sandbagging?

Badabibidon

My situation is rare, but not unique. I have well over 100 6* champions, but only a few top shelf, and even fewer useful awakened champs. So by doing what a player "should" do, and keeping every champion I get, my base hero rating is almost 2 million. But my very top champions hardly look like throne breaker champions and I am CONSTANTLY "like, every single match"; getting matches that dwarf my best deck due to this. When sandbagging was allowed I actually had a chance at fairness, and by all means I do not consider the method "cheating" because it's not.

Should there be an allowance for some measure of sandbagging?

Colinwhitworth69

No sandbagging

Every player who worked hard to get where they are roster-wise should be insulted by people who want to skip the line. Just do what most players do and build your roster and compete like a normal person.

Anyway, I suspect Kabam will find more ways to punish this “strategy”, so I guess take advantage of the system while you can.

rockykoston

No sandbagging

Everyone is like that, with only a few top shelf champs. We make do with what we got.

100 6* champs is enough to complete in Bags, maybe focus on what you have and work around the champs.

Furrymoosen

No sandbagging

The matchmaking still needs work, I will give you that, but so long as everyone is competing for the same rewards, someone is almost always going to have to face someone tougher. Also, your “chance at fairness” was a system that allowed players to beat on Cav and UC players with consistency. The old matchmaking system was great because it paired deck strength almost perfectly, but sandbagging ruined it for everyone that wasn’t Thronebreaker or higher. If it weren’t for players deciding that sandbagging was an okay way to play the game then it never would’ve had to change.

Wicket329

No sandbagging

I’d be willing to bet that you’ve got some great champions for Battlegrounds that you are overlooking. If you want to post your roster, I’m sure people would be happy to give advice on who to rank.

Ultragamer

Yes to sandbagging

There’s honestly nothing wrong with it half the time they get a lower tier champ even if they get all of their top champs it’s just a quicker way for them to get into glad circuit

Adevati

No sandbagging

Depends. Is it sandbagging if someone only uses all max 4-stars? Because that should be allowed.

Matchmaking should take the deck roster into account. But exclude the champs that are significantly lower than the top champs in the deck.

Matchmaking should place everyone versus everyone regardless of deck strength. Or equal deck strength ignoring outlier champs on the low side. Currently, matchmaking is doing neither of these.

IamGrO_ot

No sandbagging

If one uses rating/prestige as a basis for match making, it should only consist of the 10 best champs in your deck. This eliminates sandbagging.
I also think they should go back to BG rating as in Beta. Start at 1500 points, +15 for a win/ -15 for a loss. This will also mean that those who lose a lot will have more even match ups, and prob a better BG experience.

Chatterofforums

If BG matchmaking was working how many believe it should (which would be consistent with other MCOC game modes) then sandbagging should be completely irrelevant.

Since we are all competing for same rewards and competing for rank rewards, I strongly believe that either there should be separate "leagues" with different rewards OR if left how it is then matchmaking should be ANYONE in a specific tier (such as gold 1) should be able to be matched up with anyone in that same tier (such as gold 1) and prestige and pi should have ZERO role in the matchmaking process.

Either of the above would get rid of sandbagging as it would be pointless and zero benefit.

Coppin

No sandbagging

This is like asking to nerf all story content cause u don't have the right counters...

SuelGames

Yes to sandbagging

I dont do it but i dont have a problem with it, in fact its easier to beat sandbaggers

Dragoon81

Just go post in the other threads about hating match making after the changes, we don’t need the poll. Problem is still the same it’s the consecutive wins and the push to make people buy victory shields.

K00shMaan

No sandbagging

I know it sucks but you should not have any control over the ability to influence who you are matched up against at all period. I hope that matchmaking improvements continue but this is a hill I will die on. Imagine if in war you could just face an alliance way weaker than normal if you just "agreed" not to use 6 Stars. The only result that comes from this is either it full stop just doesn't work (which is ideal) or you create a scenario where it isn't necessary to get and rank up the highest rarities of any champions which is obviously not in Kabam's interest. What's the point of having a game mode and store that offers 6* and R4 materials if the key to success is running a 4* deck for easier matchups?

CyborgNinja135

No sandbagging

When sandbagging was allowed you didn't have a chance at fairness either because you were beating lower level players, and that's not fair for them. A lot of the people who have gotten to the top ranks the last few seasons have worked very hard to improve their roster and skills in order to be at that level. If you want to get the same rewards I suggest you do the same

Mobile_P0tat0

No sandbagging

Sounds like a skill issue

ItsClobberinTime

No sandbagging

The fact that your first idea to fix these issues is sandbagging instead of finding actual ways to make matchmaking more fair for everyone speaks volumes. Another sandbagger getting what they deserve lol nothing to see here.

Coppin

No sandbagging

CyborgNinja135 said:

When sandbagging was allowed you didn't have a chance at fairness either because you were beating lower level players, and that's not fair for them. A lot of the people who have gotten to the top ranks the last few seasons have worked very hard to improve their roster and skills in order to be at that level. If you want to get the same rewards I suggest you do the same

Yeah but if he sandbags he would be beating UC accounts... Cheap move...

Ace2319

Yes to sandbagging

Completely missed clicked. Totally not cool to the people that play fair

Rudolph_Raindeer

Yes to sandbagging

No sandbagging and with the current “rules” for match making makes it much harder for Paragon players and therefore lucrative buisness for mercs, since many dont want to miss out on the best rewards in the game.

So in short; no sandbagging more mercs 🤷🏼‍♂️

Badabibidon

Yes to sandbagging

Nah man I made this post because I been doing fine on both accounts up until now my mini had a better score than my main before they made sandbagging not an option. Now my main is in diamond 3 and I've lost like 50 freaking consecutive matches I'm getting matches against players that have like all r4's and I don't have a single rank 4 yet. It's not giving me a chance to win nothing I can't even get the solo objective done. I'm talking matches that are 2,3, even 4x's or more stronger than me. 0% chance at wins, because my base hero rating is high as heck because the hero pulls from crystals are NOT random it is giving me everything BUT dupes, even to the point where when there's two class crystals I can 100% predict that I will not get the class ISO I'm seeking and if I open normal crystals I know 80% certain that I will pull a class of the two class crystal. And further more I can even predict when and how the game will cheat (drop input, ignore abilities, etc) in most fights and I can't do nothing about it even though I knew beforehand exactly what was going to happen.

Funny thing is when I screen record it never happens.

Moosetiptronic

Yes to sandbagging

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Every player who worked hard to get where they are roster-wise should be insulted by people who want to skip the line. Just do what most players do and build your roster and compete like a normal person.

Anyway, I suspect Kabam will find more ways to punish this “strategy”, so I guess take advantage of the system while you can.

I wish matchmaking enabled the above to be true. As a paragon with 7 r4s, but 3 of which are sig 200 and another sig 100, I'm disadvantaged regardless.

I've fought nothing but paragons with over 13.5k prestige and most with 15k+ prestige and many, many more r4s, as far back as my history goes, which is silver 1 (currently plat 3 and very unlikely to reach even diamond, let alone GC).

So I'm ambivalent and frankly leaning towards the position where, if someone like me, who *has* invested heavily in their roster is massively disadvantaged by matchmaking, why shouldn't everyone be?

So I vote yes, just to see it all burn....

I play every day and pay to support the game, albeit not much on the pay side; 4.99 a month unit thingy is well worth it. It's ridiculous that paragons are being heavily penalized for roster development, regardless of how they tweak matchmaking.

It's also borderline bonkers that the long term players and often largest payers are being proactively disadvantaged by kabam in this game mode.

The only rationale I can think of, is the relic shards and related prestige race, is a monetization focus on the uber whales at the top that will pay anything to get them.

@Kabam Jax - the team have been remarkably silent on this issue. Why are paragons only being matched against each other in bronze? Or even in the victory track at all?

TheLightBringer

No sandbagging

I love matching sandbaggers, so I get to squash them, easy wins for me

Moosetiptronic

Yes to sandbagging

Amazing_Demon05 said:

Moosetiptronic said:

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Every player who worked hard to get where they are roster-wise should be insulted by people who want to skip the line. Just do what most players do and build your roster and compete like a normal person.

Anyway, I suspect Kabam will find more ways to punish this “strategy”, so I guess take advantage of the system while you can.

I wish matchmaking enabled the above to be true. As a paragon with 7 r4s, but 3 of which are sig 200 and another sig 100, I'm disadvantaged regardless.

I've fought nothing but paragons with over 13.5k prestige and most with 15k+ prestige and many, many more r4s, as far back as my history goes, which is silver 1 (currently plat 3 and very unlikely to reach even diamond, let alone GC).

So I'm ambivalent and frankly leaning towards the position where, if someone like me, who *has* invested heavily in their roster is massively disadvantaged by matchmaking, why shouldn't everyone be?

So I vote yes, just to see it all burn....

I play every day and pay to support the game, albeit not much on the pay side; 4.99 a month unit thingy is well worth it. It's ridiculous that paragons are being heavily penalized for roster development, regardless of how they tweak matchmaking.

It's also borderline bonkers that the long term players and often largest payers are being proactively disadvantaged by kabam in this game mode.

The only rationale I can think of, is the relic shards and related prestige race, is a monetization focus on the uber whales at the top that will pay anything to get them.

@Kabam Jax - the team have been remarkably silent on this issue. Why are paragons only being matched against each other in bronze? Or even in the victory track at all?

not true I matched TBs in gold just yesterday and I actually even lost against that person xD (thanks to my stupid last minute decision put a aarkus defender when he had kingpin as attacker availaible)

What is your prestige? Mine is 14,749, so assuming they are matching by prestige, that may be why I don't get matched with TBs.

I'd love to match some of the TBs, Cavs and uncollected people moaning about getting stuck in diamond or getting stomped in the GC, when it's a struggle to get out of gold in the VC if you have high prestige, but not much depth. I'm still running a load of 5/65s in my decks, whereas everyone I match against has only meta r3s or r4s.

Mauled

No sandbagging

Sandbagging is not the way forward. I understand why players have resorted to it, it's a loophole that should be closed.

At the start of the season when there's 1,000 Paragons, 10,000 Thronebreakers, 50,000 Cavaliers and the untold masses of casual Uncollected and lower players all starting out in the same position matchmaking without taking deck, progression title or prestige into account would result in those Paragons having a fairly easy ride up to Silver/Gold or so. They've beaten all of the smaller accounts and are ahead of the pack, and are finding their matches harder as they start to fight their peers for progress. These Paragons leaping ahead of everyone else would allow the Thronebreakers and Cavaliers easier progression up to a point, until the Paragons start to flag and the advancing Thronebreakers meet up with them and they fight and again the pack spreads, most likely with the Paragons out in front again.

This natural concertina of progression would be fine, the majority of the paragons and serious Thronebreakers would reach the circuit ahead of everyone else and then the pack would follow. I think that this is the design philosophy that Kabam had in mind when designing the Victory Track. There's no real benefit to going early, but players want to flex that they're ahead and it naturally drives competition to advance. This season with constant adjustments to the matchmaking has resulted in small accounts being well in advance of their natural position, with large accounts stuck and now everyone is meeting in the middle in a big melee that isn't benefiting anyone.

It should also be noted that access to the Gladiator circuit shouldn't be guaranteed, it is something that's earned and rightly so. I discuss this, and my proposed changes here, if anyone's interested in my proposed division system:
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/320961/proposed-change-to-bg#latest

Ultragamer

Yes to sandbagging

Cavs aren't the mass amount of players I see way more tb and paragons than cavs

Cyta

No sandbagging

I voted no, but I'm not sure what sandbagging is exactly, got only the general idea...If you want to mix 6* with 1*, then that's a defo no...if running full 5* or 3* or whatever but all same rating value even if you have higher available is considered sandbagging also, then i`m not really sure what I should vote lol... As long as the deck is balanced and not a trap for other players, it should be ok imo..Thats why I think and said before that the matchmaking would be nice to take in consideration the avg of top 7 champs in the deck...that way nobody will have any reason to mix their top 7 champs in the deck with vry low champs to trap others. As it is right now, i have many friends and ally mates that dont rank up anymore, as they dont want to make things harder for them in BGs.