Pretty sure your suggestion backed up what I said. I'm not getting wrapped up in a word hole.
The suggestion given doesn’t affect anyone negatively. It just incentivizes beating tougher opponents. Uncollected vs uncollected matches still give you 1 token for a win a take 1 token away for a loss just like it is now. So explain how this is end of progress for anyone other than paragon. In fact it helps everyone. If UC/cav matches with a new TB and wins, they get an extra token than what they get now. So please explain.
You mean it doesn't affect any Paragons negatively. What it also fails to do is reward people in BGs for using BG skill.
If players below Paragon can beat Paragons, then it’s all fine. I have lost to smaller accounts—sometimes it’s skill, other times it’s tough draft luck and at others it’s just the perennial MCoC connectivity bugs.
It sounds like some players want an excuse to continue playing smaller, comparably sized accounts while maintaining access to the upper tier BG prizes. You’ve been around long enough to know that’s not really how this game works.
Pretty sure your suggestion backed up what I said. I'm not getting wrapped up in a word hole.
The suggestion given doesn’t affect anyone negatively. It just incentivizes beating tougher opponents. Uncollected vs uncollected matches still give you 1 token for a win a take 1 token away for a loss just like it is now. So explain how this is end of progress for anyone other than paragon. In fact it helps everyone. If UC/cav matches with a new TB and wins, they get an extra token than what they get now. So please explain.
You mean it doesn't affect any Paragons negatively. What it also fails to do is reward people in BGs for using BG skill.
I would recommend rereading the suggestion, carefully. I'm not endorsing it specifically, but I don't think it does what you are knee-jerking it to do.
Pretty sure your suggestion backed up what I said. I'm not getting wrapped up in a word hole.
The suggestion given doesn’t affect anyone negatively. It just incentivizes beating tougher opponents. Uncollected vs uncollected matches still give you 1 token for a win a take 1 token away for a loss just like it is now. So explain how this is end of progress for anyone other than paragon. In fact it helps everyone. If UC/cav matches with a new TB and wins, they get an extra token than what they get now. So please explain.
You mean it doesn't affect any Paragons negatively. What it also fails to do is reward people in BGs for using BG skill.
If players below Paragon can beat Paragons, then it’s all fine. I have lost to smaller accounts—sometimes it’s skill, other times it’s tough draft luck and at others it’s just the perennial MCoC connectivity bugs.
It sounds like some players want an excuse to continue playing smaller, comparably sized accounts while maintaining access to the upper tier BG prizes. You’ve been around long enough to know that’s not really how this game works.
Dr. Zola
That's not what I'm saying at all, really. The suggestion was to alter the Tokens based on Titles. No one would ever advance past a certain point because they would be bound by them. No one wants an excuse for anything, really. I've already outlined the ways that "easy street" theory was inaccurate, and so have Players who have pointed out they won their Matches and earned their place, against Accounts larger than theirs. Based on skill. People have this antiquated and ignorant perspective that anyone lower must fight every Player in sequence on their way up. There's an assumption within that. That Players must Rank based on either Account size, or Title. That's not the case when their Ranking is scored based on their actions in the game mode. People aren't "entitled" to be higher because their Account is larger. They earn their place just like anyone else. There's this whole misguided judgment that anyone with a lower Account has been handed Rewards on a platter. Wrong. Just wrong. They're earning them based on performance, with Matches that are proportionate to what they're bringing. Just like the bitter ones are fighting Matches proportionate to what they have. Scale it. The opponents are tougher, so is what they're working with. The argument negates itself. Only, that's not a perspective that serves the argument so it's ignored. I don't support anyone getting anything without earning it. I support people getting what they earn in Battlegrounds. Based on how they do in Battlegrounds. Honestly, I've run out of more ways to say it, short of telling people to get over themselves, but that's not very productive or kind. So I will reiterate. No one is getting anything easier than anyone else. They're playing with their own Roster, and their own skills, against the same hurdles be it Nodes, counters, or otherwise. Hate to break it to people, but they're advancing because they're succeeding in the meta.
How about this to fix the issue, while keeping matches "fair"?
All VT losses are -1 token All VT wins vs a UC or CAV are +1 token All VT wins vs a TB are +2 tokens All VT wins vs a Paragon are +3 tokens
That would get the top players out of the VT sooner and promote building the best roster possible. You can keep the matchmaking as it is and apply an AW-like multiplier to wins.
The main issue here is Kabam would never go for this, because it accelerates Paragons and TBs out of VT *too* quickly. You'd have to be brain-dead to not scoop all the VT rewards instantly and qualify for GT rewards, even if you're literally incapable of winning a single GT match.
I doubt if Kabam would accept, as a solution to the problem of high roster players getting harder match ups than lower roster players be just allowing high roster players to get the rewards for almost no effort and eliminate the need to match at all.
Under this scheme, 12 wins in any order would get me from Brozne 3 to Diamond 1, and then two wins in a row gets me to Platinum and two more in a row would clear Diamond. That's way too fast: I'd be in GT in a weekend of effort, along with almost every other Paragon player in the game that wanted to.
Even my -1/0/+1/+2 proposal is riding the edge of what I think they'd accept. This would be ten times more accceleration.
Pretty sure your suggestion backed up what I said. I'm not getting wrapped up in a word hole.
The suggestion given doesn’t affect anyone negatively. It just incentivizes beating tougher opponents. Uncollected vs uncollected matches still give you 1 token for a win a take 1 token away for a loss just like it is now. So explain how this is end of progress for anyone other than paragon. In fact it helps everyone. If UC/cav matches with a new TB and wins, they get an extra token than what they get now. So please explain.
You mean it doesn't affect any Paragons negatively. What it also fails to do is reward people in BGs for using BG skill.
If players below Paragon can beat Paragons, then it’s all fine. I have lost to smaller accounts—sometimes it’s skill, other times it’s tough draft luck and at others it’s just the perennial MCoC connectivity bugs.
It sounds like some players want an excuse to continue playing smaller, comparably sized accounts while maintaining access to the upper tier BG prizes. You’ve been around long enough to know that’s not really how this game works.
Dr. Zola
That's not what I'm saying at all, really. The suggestion was to alter the Tokens based on Titles. No one would ever advance past a certain point because they would be bound by them.
First of all, this is completely false. Under the suggestion, matchmaking would be completely unaltered. This means everyone would be matching against similar foes to now. Also under the suggestion, no one would be earning fewer trophies than they are earning now. So by definition, no one would be advancing any slower than they are now.
No one wants an excuse for anything, really. I've already outlined the ways that "easy street" theory was inaccurate, and so have Players who have pointed out they won their Matches and earned their place, against Accounts larger than theirs. Based on skill. People have this antiquated and ignorant perspective that anyone lower must fight every Player in sequence on their way up. There's an assumption within that. That Players must Rank based on either Account size, or Title. That's not the case when their Ranking is scored based on their actions in the game mode. People aren't "entitled" to be higher because their Account is larger. They earn their place just like anyone else. There's this whole misguided judgment that anyone with a lower Account has been handed Rewards on a platter. Wrong. Just wrong. They're earning them based on performance, with Matches that are proportionate to what they're bringing. Just like the bitter ones are fighting Matches proportionate to what they have. Scale it. The opponents are tougher, so is what they're working with. The argument negates itself. Only, that's not a perspective that serves the argument so it's ignored. I don't support anyone getting anything without earning it. I support people getting what they earn in Battlegrounds. Based on how they do in Battlegrounds. Honestly, I've run out of more ways to say it, short of telling people to get over themselves, but that's not very productive or kind. So I will reiterate. No one is getting anything easier than anyone else. They're playing with their own Roster, and their own skills, against the same hurdles be it Nodes, counters, or otherwise. Hate to break it to people, but they're advancing because they're succeeding in the meta.
No one is saying that the players with smaller rosters aren't working to earn their rewards. We're saying they are facing far lower challenges to receive *more* rewards. When I compare the effort it takes to progress my Cav alt and my main account, the difference is extraordinary. I could probably run my Cav account into GT if I focused solely on it rather than my main. The problem is not that lower progress players are fighting fair matches and people want them to face harder matches. The problem is that there is unambiguous evidence that it takes far less effort to progress in VT with lower progress accounts. They aren't just getting the *same* rewards for less effort, they are getting *far higher rewards*. Whether you consider their effort to be equal or lesser is irrelevant. Even if you consider the effort level completely equal, the fact that a lower progress account can get far more rewards than a high progress account for the same level of effort is fundamentally broken.
When Kabam changed match making to eliminate deck-based match making, they stated part of their reasoning as:
We’ve seen a number of users with very high prestige using some very low ranked champions… all the way down to 2*s! What a weird thing to do, we thought, so we decided to change up some of the matchmaking parameters to help ensure users won’t have any reason to not bring their top teams to Battlegrounds arena. These changes will be going live shortly after season 3 starts.
Essentially, they decided that deck-based match making discouraged players from bringing their best champs to BG, which they felt was counter-intentional. Well, the current system discourages players from even ranking up champions at all, because lower (pseudo) prestige accounts have much easier match making.
It doesn't even matter to what degree this is true. It is observationally true in sufficiently many cases that no one can possibly argue it isn't happening. This follows the trajectory of Alliance War, where even I needed a sufficiently high level of evidence before accepting that the prestige matching problem - which I knew to be possible but did not think was widespread - turned out to be literally all over the place. We've seen an increasing awareness of this problem, and as more players are exposed to it and more players start paying closer attention to it, the evidence will continue to pile up that the BG game mode penalizes roster progress. It gives players with low Cav rosters a far easier path through VT than Paragon rosters. And that is damaging to the game mode as a whole.
The difference is not small either. Let's compare just the trophy tokens a player might earn if they a) reach Platinum 3 vs b) completes the VT tracks and enters GT. That doesn't sound like a huge difference or advantage. But a player that reaches P3 gets 59,400 tokens. That's 25 track promotions.. A player that completes the entire VT track, which is just 16 more track promotions, gets 135,900.
That's almost two and a half times more tokens, while facing unquestionably lower caliber competition. Even if you think their matches are equally fair as high roster players that's still 2.3x the rewards for "equal" effort.
Whether UCs facing UCs is just as fair as Paragons facing Paragons and UCs never having to face consistently stronger competition is a red herring. We can argue that to death, but the situation is so bad it doesn't even matter. We can simply concede that the individual fights are "fair" and ask the obvious question: why are lower roster accounts getting more rewards for the same "fair" fights? At best what lower roster players should be getting for their competition, if you say it is equal, is equal access to rewards. They most certainly do not have equal access to rewards. They are *overtaking* higher strength roster accounts. And not by a little. Compared to the rewards players who are breezing into GT with rosters a quarter as strong as mine, to a first order approximation I'm getting nothing for my BG effort.
As shown in other posts, small chances in win percentage have dramatic impact on progress rate, and because token rewards get larger at higher tiers small changes in progress rate are amplified in larger differences in token reward earning rates. Lower roster match making allowing them to dodge stronger accounts equates to higher win percentages, which translates to faster VT progress, which generates higher reward rates. And it doesn't take much to swing the pendulum far in the other direction.
If Kabam doesn’t remove Prestige matchmaking, then they MUST alter the structure of VT. We can’t have 10k prestige at GC and 16k prestige accounts stuck at VT. That’s a clown fiesta, not a competitive mode. @TyEdge had proposed the best solution in my opinion: Double up the shields needed for each VT tier +2 shields for winning -1 shield for losing Everyone eventually reaches GC, even with Prestige matchmaking. Both higher and lower accounts. Then at GC, random matchmaking does the rest work and all players end up where their roster/skill combination brings them. Now nearly half the Paragons are out of the play offs (GC), while many lower accounts are there, by matching each other only. This is definitely not a fair competition.
Everyone eventually reaches GC, even with Prestige matchmaking. Both higher and lower accounts.
Any idea that purports to do this would probably be DOA.
Kabam can transfer an X% from VT tiers rewards to GC rank rewards, in order to avoid distributing “too much” rewards. The only sure is VT needs to change. Whether that is matchmaking, whether that is rewards distribution accordingly to prestige, whether that is the win/lose system with the shields. We can’t have Prestige matchmaking and same rewards for all. We can’t have lower accounts getting the same as higher accounts and avoid the competition. It’s not right.
Under the proposed suggestion, Paragon would receive 3 Tokens for a Win, TB 2, and down. That's literally the same scenario you're describing, only it benefits the other side. I find this to be a hypocritical suggestion. People should be rewarded for the progress they make in the game mode. Not for which they feel entitled based on all other areas of the game. In that model, some Players will have to win 3 times as many Matches to advance. That's ridiculous. I respect your input, but I disagree with that idea.
Under the proposed suggestion, Paragon would receive 3 Tokens for a Win, TB 2, and down. That's literally the same scenario you're describing, only it benefits the other side. I find this to be a hypocritical suggestion. People should be rewarded for the progress they make in the game mode. Not for which they feel entitled based on all other areas of the game. In that model, some Players will have to win 3 times as many Matches to advance. That's ridiculous. I respect your input, but I disagree with that idea.
Wrong: whoever beats paragon will get 3 tokens, beat TB-2 tokens and everyone below-1 token. It’s not that paragons will get 3 tokens and so on and so forth.
Wrong again: nobody has to win 3 times more than what they are winning now. If you can give an example where somebody needs to win 3 times more then what they need to win now, I am all ears.
Under the proposed suggestion, Paragon would receive 3 Tokens for a Win, TB 2, and down. That's literally the same scenario you're describing, only it benefits the other side. I find this to be a hypocritical suggestion. People should be rewarded for the progress they make in the game mode. Not for which they feel entitled based on all other areas of the game. In that model, some Players will have to win 3 times as many Matches to advance. That's ridiculous. I respect your input, but I disagree with that idea.
Wrong: whoever beats paragon will get 3 tokens, beat TB-2 tokens and everyone below-1 token. It’s not that paragons will get 3 tokens and so on and so forth.
Wrong again: nobody has to win 3 times more than what they are winning now. If you can give an example where somebody needs to win 3 times more then what they need to win now, I am all ears.
Okay, so I misread. I thought the idea was to award Tokens based on the Titles we held. It still has the same effect that I outlined under the current Matchmaking criteria.
Pretty sure your suggestion backed up what I said. I'm not getting wrapped up in a word hole.
The suggestion given doesn’t affect anyone negatively. It just incentivizes beating tougher opponents. Uncollected vs uncollected matches still give you 1 token for a win a take 1 token away for a loss just like it is now. So explain how this is end of progress for anyone other than paragon. In fact it helps everyone. If UC/cav matches with a new TB and wins, they get an extra token than what they get now. So please explain.
You mean it doesn't affect any Paragons negatively. What it also fails to do is reward people in BGs for using BG skill.
If players below Paragon can beat Paragons, then it’s all fine. I have lost to smaller accounts—sometimes it’s skill, other times it’s tough draft luck and at others it’s just the perennial MCoC connectivity bugs.
It sounds like some players want an excuse to continue playing smaller, comparably sized accounts while maintaining access to the upper tier BG prizes. You’ve been around long enough to know that’s not really how this game works.
Dr. Zola
That's not what I'm saying at all, really. The suggestion was to alter the Tokens based on Titles. No one would ever advance past a certain point because they would be bound by them.
First of all, this is completely false. Under the suggestion, matchmaking would be completely unaltered. This means everyone would be matching against similar foes to now. Also under the suggestion, no one would be earning fewer trophies than they are earning now. So by definition, no one would be advancing any slower than they are now.
No one wants an excuse for anything, really. I've already outlined the ways that "easy street" theory was inaccurate, and so have Players who have pointed out they won their Matches and earned their place, against Accounts larger than theirs. Based on skill. People have this antiquated and ignorant perspective that anyone lower must fight every Player in sequence on their way up. There's an assumption within that. That Players must Rank based on either Account size, or Title. That's not the case when their Ranking is scored based on their actions in the game mode. People aren't "entitled" to be higher because their Account is larger. They earn their place just like anyone else. There's this whole misguided judgment that anyone with a lower Account has been handed Rewards on a platter. Wrong. Just wrong. They're earning them based on performance, with Matches that are proportionate to what they're bringing. Just like the bitter ones are fighting Matches proportionate to what they have. Scale it. The opponents are tougher, so is what they're working with. The argument negates itself. Only, that's not a perspective that serves the argument so it's ignored. I don't support anyone getting anything without earning it. I support people getting what they earn in Battlegrounds. Based on how they do in Battlegrounds. Honestly, I've run out of more ways to say it, short of telling people to get over themselves, but that's not very productive or kind. So I will reiterate. No one is getting anything easier than anyone else. They're playing with their own Roster, and their own skills, against the same hurdles be it Nodes, counters, or otherwise. Hate to break it to people, but they're advancing because they're succeeding in the meta.
No one is saying that the players with smaller rosters aren't working to earn their rewards. We're saying they are facing far lower challenges to receive *more* rewards. When I compare the effort it takes to progress my Cav alt and my main account, the difference is extraordinary. I could probably run my Cav account into GT if I focused solely on it rather than my main. The problem is not that lower progress players are fighting fair matches and people want them to face harder matches. The problem is that there is unambiguous evidence that it takes far less effort to progress in VT with lower progress accounts. They aren't just getting the *same* rewards for less effort, they are getting *far higher rewards*. Whether you consider their effort to be equal or lesser is irrelevant. Even if you consider the effort level completely equal, the fact that a lower progress account can get far more rewards than a high progress account for the same level of effort is fundamentally broken.
When Kabam changed match making to eliminate deck-based match making, they stated part of their reasoning as:
We’ve seen a number of users with very high prestige using some very low ranked champions… all the way down to 2*s! What a weird thing to do, we thought, so we decided to change up some of the matchmaking parameters to help ensure users won’t have any reason to not bring their top teams to Battlegrounds arena. These changes will be going live shortly after season 3 starts.
Essentially, they decided that deck-based match making discouraged players from bringing their best champs to BG, which they felt was counter-intentional. Well, the current system discourages players from even ranking up champions at all, because lower (pseudo) prestige accounts have much easier match making.
It doesn't even matter to what degree this is true. It is observationally true in sufficiently many cases that no one can possibly argue it isn't happening. This follows the trajectory of Alliance War, where even I needed a sufficiently high level of evidence before accepting that the prestige matching problem - which I knew to be possible but did not think was widespread - turned out to be literally all over the place. We've seen an increasing awareness of this problem, and as more players are exposed to it and more players start paying closer attention to it, the evidence will continue to pile up that the BG game mode penalizes roster progress. It gives players with low Cav rosters a far easier path through VT than Paragon rosters. And that is damaging to the game mode as a whole.
The difference is not small either. Let's compare just the trophy tokens a player might earn if they a) reach Platinum 3 vs b) completes the VT tracks and enters GT. That doesn't sound like a huge difference or advantage. But a player that reaches P3 gets 59,400 tokens. That's 25 track promotions.. A player that completes the entire VT track, which is just 16 more track promotions, gets 135,900.
That's almost two and a half times more tokens, while facing unquestionably lower caliber competition. Even if you think their matches are equally fair as high roster players that's still 2.3x the rewards for "equal" effort.
Whether UCs facing UCs is just as fair as Paragons facing Paragons and UCs never having to face consistently stronger competition is a red herring. We can argue that to death, but the situation is so bad it doesn't even matter. We can simply concede that the individual fights are "fair" and ask the obvious question: why are lower roster accounts getting more rewards for the same "fair" fights? At best what lower roster players should be getting for their competition, if you say it is equal, is equal access to rewards. They most certainly do not have equal access to rewards. They are *overtaking* higher strength roster accounts. And not by a little. Compared to the rewards players who are breezing into GT with rosters a quarter as strong as mine, to a first order approximation I'm getting nothing for my BG effort.
As shown in other posts, small chances in win percentage have dramatic impact on progress rate, and because token rewards get larger at higher tiers small changes in progress rate are amplified in larger differences in token reward earning rates. Lower roster match making allowing them to dodge stronger accounts equates to higher win percentages, which translates to faster VT progress, which generates higher reward rates. And it doesn't take much to swing the pendulum far in the other direction.
This is so spot on I actually have nothing to add.
It's not 2.3x the Rewards for equal effort. It's 2.3x the Rewards for winning their Matches. Regardless, this has gone back-and-forth enough for my tastes. There have been some good points made and I don't discredit them. I still maintain that I'm not opposed to other ideas, as I don't really have an agenda with my views. A few main points for me still remain. There has to be some kind of starting point to prevent manipulating the Matches. I don't think many people disputed that. If the Rewards are the argument, then address them in a way that pays out appropriately, but do it in a way that doesn't prevent people from earning their progress and not based on what Title they have. That just discourages people from even playing. I've seen what's happened to people on the other end in War, and it's not pretty. One game mode should never be monopolized by any demographic. As for my other point, I think that won't get anywhere, because I still feel there's a lack of onus on the part of people not winning their own Matches. If they're at the top of the Title chain, with the most experience and skill, then they should be able to manage getting out of the VT. Regardless of who else is. I'll take that to the proverbial grave.
Or, you could be assigned a value based on your wins and losses and nothing else.
Then perhaps it could become a sort of ranking metric to determine your matchups with each VT progression point gated to your individual rating and you face others in that same tier.
Win lots, move forward. Dont win enough, stay where you are. Dont win much, dont earn many rewards.
Random, dispassionate. Fair to UC and Paragon alike.
The problem with the matchmaking system is that 50% is the break even win rate. The only way that changes is what baseball statisticians would call cluster luck - you’re not penalized for losing with 0 medals on hand (or if you use a victory shield).
So the only way that more medals (and thus progression) are introduced into this closed system are 1) to change the break even mark for medals, or 2) have a whole bunch of accounts willing to lose matches to help others progress.
A system with +2 for a win, -1 for a loss, and more medals needed to progress would incentivize more players to play because losses aren’t as costly. Many of those players might currently be frustrated by grinders and whales who outclass them from the jump, but if the player pool was broader, they’d have more peers to compete against and be *even* more interested in playing.
The idea that “everyone would get to GC” is a fallacy. This mode is incredibly time consuming. It still requires understanding of the nodes, strategy in deck building and champ selection, and skill. This change just makes VT slightly less of a zero-sum game.
Pretty sure your suggestion backed up what I said. I'm not getting wrapped up in a word hole.
The suggestion given doesn’t affect anyone negatively. It just incentivizes beating tougher opponents. Uncollected vs uncollected matches still give you 1 token for a win a take 1 token away for a loss just like it is now. So explain how this is end of progress for anyone other than paragon. In fact it helps everyone. If UC/cav matches with a new TB and wins, they get an extra token than what they get now. So please explain.
You mean it doesn't affect any Paragons negatively. What it also fails to do is reward people in BGs for using BG skill.
If players below Paragon can beat Paragons, then it’s all fine. I have lost to smaller accounts—sometimes it’s skill, other times it’s tough draft luck and at others it’s just the perennial MCoC connectivity bugs.
It sounds like some players want an excuse to continue playing smaller, comparably sized accounts while maintaining access to the upper tier BG prizes. You’ve been around long enough to know that’s not really how this game works.
Dr. Zola
That's not what I'm saying at all, really. The suggestion was to alter the Tokens based on Titles. No one would ever advance past a certain point because they would be bound by them.
First of all, this is completely false. Under the suggestion, matchmaking would be completely unaltered. This means everyone would be matching against similar foes to now. Also under the suggestion, no one would be earning fewer trophies than they are earning now. So by definition, no one would be advancing any slower than they are now.
No one wants an excuse for anything, really. I've already outlined the ways that "easy street" theory was inaccurate, and so have Players who have pointed out they won their Matches and earned their place, against Accounts larger than theirs. Based on skill. People have this antiquated and ignorant perspective that anyone lower must fight every Player in sequence on their way up. There's an assumption within that. That Players must Rank based on either Account size, or Title. That's not the case when their Ranking is scored based on their actions in the game mode. People aren't "entitled" to be higher because their Account is larger. They earn their place just like anyone else. There's this whole misguided judgment that anyone with a lower Account has been handed Rewards on a platter. Wrong. Just wrong. They're earning them based on performance, with Matches that are proportionate to what they're bringing. Just like the bitter ones are fighting Matches proportionate to what they have. Scale it. The opponents are tougher, so is what they're working with. The argument negates itself. Only, that's not a perspective that serves the argument so it's ignored. I don't support anyone getting anything without earning it. I support people getting what they earn in Battlegrounds. Based on how they do in Battlegrounds. Honestly, I've run out of more ways to say it, short of telling people to get over themselves, but that's not very productive or kind. So I will reiterate. No one is getting anything easier than anyone else. They're playing with their own Roster, and their own skills, against the same hurdles be it Nodes, counters, or otherwise. Hate to break it to people, but they're advancing because they're succeeding in the meta.
No one is saying that the players with smaller rosters aren't working to earn their rewards. We're saying they are facing far lower challenges to receive *more* rewards. When I compare the effort it takes to progress my Cav alt and my main account, the difference is extraordinary. I could probably run my Cav account into GT if I focused solely on it rather than my main. The problem is not that lower progress players are fighting fair matches and people want them to face harder matches. The problem is that there is unambiguous evidence that it takes far less effort to progress in VT with lower progress accounts. They aren't just getting the *same* rewards for less effort, they are getting *far higher rewards*. Whether you consider their effort to be equal or lesser is irrelevant. Even if you consider the effort level completely equal, the fact that a lower progress account can get far more rewards than a high progress account for the same level of effort is fundamentally broken.
When Kabam changed match making to eliminate deck-based match making, they stated part of their reasoning as:
We’ve seen a number of users with very high prestige using some very low ranked champions… all the way down to 2*s! What a weird thing to do, we thought, so we decided to change up some of the matchmaking parameters to help ensure users won’t have any reason to not bring their top teams to Battlegrounds arena. These changes will be going live shortly after season 3 starts.
Essentially, they decided that deck-based match making discouraged players from bringing their best champs to BG, which they felt was counter-intentional. Well, the current system discourages players from even ranking up champions at all, because lower (pseudo) prestige accounts have much easier match making.
It doesn't even matter to what degree this is true. It is observationally true in sufficiently many cases that no one can possibly argue it isn't happening. This follows the trajectory of Alliance War, where even I needed a sufficiently high level of evidence before accepting that the prestige matching problem - which I knew to be possible but did not think was widespread - turned out to be literally all over the place. We've seen an increasing awareness of this problem, and as more players are exposed to it and more players start paying closer attention to it, the evidence will continue to pile up that the BG game mode penalizes roster progress. It gives players with low Cav rosters a far easier path through VT than Paragon rosters. And that is damaging to the game mode as a whole.
The difference is not small either. Let's compare just the trophy tokens a player might earn if they a) reach Platinum 3 vs b) completes the VT tracks and enters GT. That doesn't sound like a huge difference or advantage. But a player that reaches P3 gets 59,400 tokens. That's 25 track promotions.. A player that completes the entire VT track, which is just 16 more track promotions, gets 135,900.
That's almost two and a half times more tokens, while facing unquestionably lower caliber competition. Even if you think their matches are equally fair as high roster players that's still 2.3x the rewards for "equal" effort.
Whether UCs facing UCs is just as fair as Paragons facing Paragons and UCs never having to face consistently stronger competition is a red herring. We can argue that to death, but the situation is so bad it doesn't even matter. We can simply concede that the individual fights are "fair" and ask the obvious question: why are lower roster accounts getting more rewards for the same "fair" fights? At best what lower roster players should be getting for their competition, if you say it is equal, is equal access to rewards. They most certainly do not have equal access to rewards. They are *overtaking* higher strength roster accounts. And not by a little. Compared to the rewards players who are breezing into GT with rosters a quarter as strong as mine, to a first order approximation I'm getting nothing for my BG effort.
As shown in other posts, small chances in win percentage have dramatic impact on progress rate, and because token rewards get larger at higher tiers small changes in progress rate are amplified in larger differences in token reward earning rates. Lower roster match making allowing them to dodge stronger accounts equates to higher win percentages, which translates to faster VT progress, which generates higher reward rates. And it doesn't take much to swing the pendulum far in the other direction.
Big issue is how polarizing small differences in success are. If you win 45%-50% of your matches, you will really struggle once you get to Silver. That's only a few thousand BG Tokens worth of rewards. If you win 50%-55% of your matches, you will probably get to Diamond 2 and maybe GC. As DNA pointed out, that's over 100K BG Tokens. It can be really frustrating when you're exclusively facing significantly more difficult competition and relatively performing only slightly worse and you get basically nothing in comparison.
I think something that hasn't been suggested that could help with the balance is changing how the BG Store works. Items themselves can be restricted by progression or just have different quantities per week but the cost should be standardized amongst all progression titles. That makes it more justifiable when people say that we are fighting for the same rewards.
How about this to fix the issue, while keeping matches "fair"?
All VT losses are -1 token All VT wins vs a UC or CAV are +1 token All VT wins vs a TB are +2 tokens All VT wins vs a Paragon are +3 tokens
That would get the top players out of the VT sooner and promote building the best roster possible. You can keep the matchmaking as it is and apply an AW-like multiplier to wins.
The main issue here is Kabam would never go for this, because it accelerates Paragons and TBs out of VT *too* quickly. You'd have to be brain-dead to not scoop all the VT rewards instantly and qualify for GT rewards, even if you're literally incapable of winning a single GT match.
I doubt if Kabam would accept, as a solution to the problem of high roster players getting harder match ups than lower roster players be just allowing high roster players to get the rewards for almost no effort and eliminate the need to match at all.
Under this scheme, 12 wins in any order would get me from Brozne 3 to Diamond 1, and then two wins in a row gets me to Platinum and two more in a row would clear Diamond. That's way too fast: I'd be in GT in a weekend of effort, along with almost every other Paragon player in the game that wanted to.
Even my -1/0/+1/+2 proposal is riding the edge of what I think they'd accept. This would be ten times more accceleration.
Kabam not wanting Paragon's to get out of the VT isn't a good argument.
End game Paragons getting out of the VT in a weekend is how it should be. I suggested starting people at different levels, which you poo-pood because then they'd have to send out free rewards so this is my solution.
TBH having both a VT and a GC is the real problem. It should be one or the other (I'd go with VT tiers but GC scoring). The rewards should be split up into the season rewards as opposed to when you reach a new tier (because you should be able to drop tiers if you lose enough). Then every season you either stay at the same points/tier or have it reduced slightly (NOT to 0) so it would take a few seasons to climb to the top and new players would be facing other new players at low tiers. I'd also make seasons 1 week long so each meta is its own season. You would have to complete a certain amount of BGs each season to qualify for season rewards (just like AW so that should be pretty easily possible) to avoid people getting free rewards every season. IMO, this would make BGs a lot more fun, and the reduced rewards (per week instead of per month) would make slumps or bad matches not hurt so much.
Under the proposed suggestion, Paragon would receive 3 Tokens for a Win, TB 2, and down. That's literally the same scenario you're describing, only it benefits the other side. I find this to be a hypocritical suggestion. People should be rewarded for the progress they make in the game mode. Not for which they feel entitled based on all other areas of the game. In that model, some Players will have to win 3 times as many Matches to advance. That's ridiculous. I respect your input, but I disagree with that idea.
It has the same effect. Under the current Matchmaking system, the majority of people are facing similar points. Paragons are facing Paragons. Winning 3 Tokens against a Paragon gives 3 times the Tokens against UC. So one demographic will have to work 3 times as hard to gain the progress that another is. I may have misunderstood the suggestion, but the effect is still the same.
It has the same effect. Under the current Matchmaking system, the majority of people are facing similar points. Paragons are facing Paragons. Winning 3 Tokens against a Paragon gives 3 times the Tokens against UC. So one demographic will have to work 3 times as hard to gain the progress that another is. I may have misunderstood the suggestion, but the effect is still the same.
"Muggles in their rightful place." comes to mind.
But you have been advocating people to focus on their own matchups. So if paragons get 3 points for defeating paragons, how does it affect those people who face and defeat UC? Shouldn’t they just focus on their own matchups?
I wanted to see how Paragons feel about current matchmaking in Bgs so figured I'd ask this question to all of you.
Quick background, I'm end game player, have 100% all content (spend a little but very far from a whale) and before the "git gud" comments flood in, be advised that I have hundreds of gameplay vids on my channel showing I'm fine on the "git gud" category.
Last few seasons, with minimal effort I was out of victory track and in gladiator circuit within first week of BG season. Ive finished decently high top 1000 players in GC each season (without much effort) of BG.
This season, I've put in similar amount of effort but am still in gold. I know with more effort that will change soon and will change as the season goes on, but I can't help but feel this seems a bit unfair based on recent matchmaking changes.
Im fairly positive I'm not the only paragon or high prestige player in this situation and can't help but get annoyed when I see far weaker players who would get slaughtered against me already in GC because the matchmaking system matches weak players against weak players while strong players have to try and win several in a row against end gamers and massive whales in every tier starting in bronze.
This is the only game mode that I'm aware of that actually rewards players for having weaker accounts, avoiding rankups and avoiding prestige. It really doesn't make sense to me. It makes less sense since Kabam tries to do a very similar thing in AW seasons a couple years ago and it was a massive failure and resulted in far weaker alliances getting same or better rewards than much stronger alliances.
We are all competing for same rewards in BG (yes, stores have different prices but we competing for exact same rewards, to include exact same amount of battleground tokens) so why is it setup this way.
I know the lower players have to love this so I'm sure plenty of troll comments coming, but I'm curious to see how others in similar situations feel.
Personally, I feel like it's counterproductive on Kabams end doing it this way.
I wanted to see how Paragons feel about current matchmaking in Bgs so figured I'd ask this question to all of you.
Quick background, I'm end game player, have 100% all content (spend a little but very far from a whale) and before the "git gud" comments flood in, be advised that I have hundreds of gameplay vids on my channel showing I'm fine on the "git gud" category.
Last few seasons, with minimal effort I was out of victory track and in gladiator circuit within first week of BG season. Ive finished decently high top 1000 players in GC each season (without much effort) of BG.
This season, I've put in similar amount of effort but am still in gold. I know with more effort that will change soon and will change as the season goes on, but I can't help but feel this seems a bit unfair based on recent matchmaking changes.
Im fairly positive I'm not the only paragon or high prestige player in this situation and can't help but get annoyed when I see far weaker players who would get slaughtered against me already in GC because the matchmaking system matches weak players against weak players while strong players have to try and win several in a row against end gamers and massive whales in every tier starting in bronze.
This is the only game mode that I'm aware of that actually rewards players for having weaker accounts, avoiding rankups and avoiding prestige. It really doesn't make sense to me. It makes less sense since Kabam tries to do a very similar thing in AW seasons a couple years ago and it was a massive failure and resulted in far weaker alliances getting same or better rewards than much stronger alliances.
We are all competing for same rewards in BG (yes, stores have different prices but we competing for exact same rewards, to include exact same amount of battleground tokens) so why is it setup this way.
I know the lower players have to love this so I'm sure plenty of troll comments coming, but I'm curious to see how others in similar situations feel.
Personally, I feel like it's counterproductive on Kabams end doing it this way.
I wanted to see how Paragons feel about current matchmaking in Bgs so figured I'd ask this question to all of you.
Quick background, I'm end game player, have 100% all content (spend a little but very far from a whale) and before the "git gud" comments flood in, be advised that I have hundreds of gameplay vids on my channel showing I'm fine on the "git gud" category.
Last few seasons, with minimal effort I was out of victory track and in gladiator circuit within first week of BG season. Ive finished decently high top 1000 players in GC each season (without much effort) of BG.
This season, I've put in similar amount of effort but am still in gold. I know with more effort that will change soon and will change as the season goes on, but I can't help but feel this seems a bit unfair based on recent matchmaking changes.
Im fairly positive I'm not the only paragon or high prestige player in this situation and can't help but get annoyed when I see far weaker players who would get slaughtered against me already in GC because the matchmaking system matches weak players against weak players while strong players have to try and win several in a row against end gamers and massive whales in every tier starting in bronze.
This is the only game mode that I'm aware of that actually rewards players for having weaker accounts, avoiding rankups and avoiding prestige. It really doesn't make sense to me. It makes less sense since Kabam tries to do a very similar thing in AW seasons a couple years ago and it was a massive failure and resulted in far weaker alliances getting same or better rewards than much stronger alliances.
We are all competing for same rewards in BG (yes, stores have different prices but we competing for exact same rewards, to include exact same amount of battleground tokens) so why is it setup this way.
I know the lower players have to love this so I'm sure plenty of troll comments coming, but I'm curious to see how others in similar situations feel.
Personally, I feel like it's counterproductive on Kabams end doing it this way.
I wanted to see how Paragons feel about current matchmaking in Bgs so figured I'd ask this question to all of you.
Quick background, I'm end game player, have 100% all content (spend a little but very far from a whale) and before the "git gud" comments flood in, be advised that I have hundreds of gameplay vids on my channel showing I'm fine on the "git gud" category.
Last few seasons, with minimal effort I was out of victory track and in gladiator circuit within first week of BG season. Ive finished decently high top 1000 players in GC each season (without much effort) of BG.
This season, I've put in similar amount of effort but am still in gold. I know with more effort that will change soon and will change as the season goes on, but I can't help but feel this seems a bit unfair based on recent matchmaking changes.
Im fairly positive I'm not the only paragon or high prestige player in this situation and can't help but get annoyed when I see far weaker players who would get slaughtered against me already in GC because the matchmaking system matches weak players against weak players while strong players have to try and win several in a row against end gamers and massive whales in every tier starting in bronze.
This is the only game mode that I'm aware of that actually rewards players for having weaker accounts, avoiding rankups and avoiding prestige. It really doesn't make sense to me. It makes less sense since Kabam tries to do a very similar thing in AW seasons a couple years ago and it was a massive failure and resulted in far weaker alliances getting same or better rewards than much stronger alliances.
We are all competing for same rewards in BG (yes, stores have different prices but we competing for exact same rewards, to include exact same amount of battleground tokens) so why is it setup this way.
I know the lower players have to love this so I'm sure plenty of troll comments coming, but I'm curious to see how others in similar situations feel.
Personally, I feel like it's counterproductive on Kabams end doing it this way.
Easy fix , stop crying , stop playing , its that so hard to stop playing a game? I have same problem but i saw i will just waste my time and deleted the game reinstall next month again like that ? Again delete , trust me its not that hard
It has the same effect. Under the current Matchmaking system, the majority of people are facing similar points. Paragons are facing Paragons. Winning 3 Tokens against a Paragon gives 3 times the Tokens against UC. So one demographic will have to work 3 times as hard to gain the progress that another is. I may have misunderstood the suggestion, but the effect is still the same.
"Muggles in their rightful place." comes to mind.
But you have been advocating people to focus on their own matchups. So if paragons get 3 points for defeating paragons, how does it affect those people who face and defeat UC? Shouldn’t they just focus on their own matchups?
Why bother having an actual competition? Why not just line people up based on Account size and Titles, and just give the Rewards people feel are appropriate? I also said people should be able to earn their way up through their own efforts. All that does is propel the people higher up much faster than anyone else. That's equally as wrong. You want people to be rewarded based on their progress in the game mode. Not based on their Title.
Something doesn’t feel right! On my 2nd account i always get matched up with accounts smaller than me, and all fairly easy wins. But on my main account i get matched up with accounts 2X the size of mine.
This is me exactly. However, they rank the accounts, my main must be on the low end of the high tier and my mini on the high end of the low tier. It makes no sense that it is harder for me to progress on the account that I have spent more time, money and effort on...
I don't know where this "weak players face only weak players" comes from. Have any of these weak players sent you any proof or where'd you get this data from? I am Uncollected, and I made it to Vibranium after spending about 5k elder marks and facing a lot of Thronebreakers after I made it to Diamond 3.
I'm not claiming there's nothing wrong with the matchmaking and it's perfect but claiming we're getting those rewards handed over to us with no effort because we only have to face weak players (which is kinda what you're implying) is just not true either.
How many 16k Paragons did you face on your well-earned trip to Vibranium?
None, however considering my prestige is barely 9k, facing TB with 12k prestige is not an easy win for me like some of you imply. If you actually read what I typed instead of trying to be edgy because that's the only way you big brains can have an argument on these forums, you'd realize I very clearly said matchmaking is far from perfect but claiming we're getting free wins because we only face weak players is not true either because we're not facing weak players only.
I don't know where this "weak players face only weak players" comes from. Have any of these weak players sent you any proof or where'd you get this data from? I am Uncollected, and I made it to Vibranium after spending about 5k elder marks and facing a lot of Thronebreakers after I made it to Diamond 3.
I'm not claiming there's nothing wrong with the matchmaking and it's perfect but claiming we're getting those rewards handed over to us with no effort because we only have to face weak players (which is kinda what you're implying) is just not true either.
How many 16k Paragons did you face on your well-earned trip to Vibranium?
None, however considering my prestige is barely 9k, facing TB with 12k prestige is not an easy win for me like some of you imply. If you actually read what I typed instead of trying to be edgy because that's the only way you big brains can have an argument on these forums, you'd realize I very clearly said matchmaking is far from perfect but claiming we're getting free wins because we only face weak players is not true either because we're not facing weak players only.
It doesn't matter. You don't deserve to get to Vibranium w/o facing a single Paragon along the way. Anyway, congrats on your well-earned rewards!
Comments
It sounds like some players want an excuse to continue playing smaller, comparably sized accounts while maintaining access to the upper tier BG prizes. You’ve been around long enough to know that’s not really how this game works.
Dr. Zola
No one wants an excuse for anything, really. I've already outlined the ways that "easy street" theory was inaccurate, and so have Players who have pointed out they won their Matches and earned their place, against Accounts larger than theirs. Based on skill.
People have this antiquated and ignorant perspective that anyone lower must fight every Player in sequence on their way up. There's an assumption within that. That Players must Rank based on either Account size, or Title. That's not the case when their Ranking is scored based on their actions in the game mode.
People aren't "entitled" to be higher because their Account is larger. They earn their place just like anyone else.
There's this whole misguided judgment that anyone with a lower Account has been handed Rewards on a platter. Wrong. Just wrong. They're earning them based on performance, with Matches that are proportionate to what they're bringing. Just like the bitter ones are fighting Matches proportionate to what they have. Scale it. The opponents are tougher, so is what they're working with. The argument negates itself. Only, that's not a perspective that serves the argument so it's ignored.
I don't support anyone getting anything without earning it. I support people getting what they earn in Battlegrounds. Based on how they do in Battlegrounds.
Honestly, I've run out of more ways to say it, short of telling people to get over themselves, but that's not very productive or kind. So I will reiterate. No one is getting anything easier than anyone else. They're playing with their own Roster, and their own skills, against the same hurdles be it Nodes, counters, or otherwise. Hate to break it to people, but they're advancing because they're succeeding in the meta.
I doubt if Kabam would accept, as a solution to the problem of high roster players getting harder match ups than lower roster players be just allowing high roster players to get the rewards for almost no effort and eliminate the need to match at all.
Under this scheme, 12 wins in any order would get me from Brozne 3 to Diamond 1, and then two wins in a row gets me to Platinum and two more in a row would clear Diamond. That's way too fast: I'd be in GT in a weekend of effort, along with almost every other Paragon player in the game that wanted to.
Even my -1/0/+1/+2 proposal is riding the edge of what I think they'd accept. This would be ten times more accceleration.
When Kabam changed match making to eliminate deck-based match making, they stated part of their reasoning as:
Essentially, they decided that deck-based match making discouraged players from bringing their best champs to BG, which they felt was counter-intentional. Well, the current system discourages players from even ranking up champions at all, because lower (pseudo) prestige accounts have much easier match making.
It doesn't even matter to what degree this is true. It is observationally true in sufficiently many cases that no one can possibly argue it isn't happening. This follows the trajectory of Alliance War, where even I needed a sufficiently high level of evidence before accepting that the prestige matching problem - which I knew to be possible but did not think was widespread - turned out to be literally all over the place. We've seen an increasing awareness of this problem, and as more players are exposed to it and more players start paying closer attention to it, the evidence will continue to pile up that the BG game mode penalizes roster progress. It gives players with low Cav rosters a far easier path through VT than Paragon rosters. And that is damaging to the game mode as a whole.
The difference is not small either. Let's compare just the trophy tokens a player might earn if they a) reach Platinum 3 vs b) completes the VT tracks and enters GT. That doesn't sound like a huge difference or advantage. But a player that reaches P3 gets 59,400 tokens. That's 25 track promotions.. A player that completes the entire VT track, which is just 16 more track promotions, gets 135,900.
That's almost two and a half times more tokens, while facing unquestionably lower caliber competition. Even if you think their matches are equally fair as high roster players that's still 2.3x the rewards for "equal" effort.
Whether UCs facing UCs is just as fair as Paragons facing Paragons and UCs never having to face consistently stronger competition is a red herring. We can argue that to death, but the situation is so bad it doesn't even matter. We can simply concede that the individual fights are "fair" and ask the obvious question: why are lower roster accounts getting more rewards for the same "fair" fights? At best what lower roster players should be getting for their competition, if you say it is equal, is equal access to rewards. They most certainly do not have equal access to rewards. They are *overtaking* higher strength roster accounts. And not by a little. Compared to the rewards players who are breezing into GT with rosters a quarter as strong as mine, to a first order approximation I'm getting nothing for my BG effort.
As shown in other posts, small chances in win percentage have dramatic impact on progress rate, and because token rewards get larger at higher tiers small changes in progress rate are amplified in larger differences in token reward earning rates. Lower roster match making allowing them to dodge stronger accounts equates to higher win percentages, which translates to faster VT progress, which generates higher reward rates. And it doesn't take much to swing the pendulum far in the other direction.
We can’t have 10k prestige at GC and 16k prestige accounts stuck at VT. That’s a clown fiesta, not a competitive mode.
@TyEdge had proposed the best solution in my opinion:
Double up the shields needed for each VT tier
+2 shields for winning
-1 shield for losing
Everyone eventually reaches GC, even with Prestige matchmaking.
Both higher and lower accounts.
Then at GC, random matchmaking does the rest work and all players end up where their roster/skill combination brings them.
Now nearly half the Paragons are out of the play offs (GC), while many lower accounts are there, by matching each other only.
This is definitely not a fair competition.
The only sure is VT needs to change.
Whether that is matchmaking, whether that is rewards distribution accordingly to prestige, whether that is the win/lose system with the shields.
We can’t have Prestige matchmaking and same rewards for all.
We can’t have lower accounts getting the same as higher accounts and avoid the competition.
It’s not right.
Under the proposed suggestion, Paragon would receive 3 Tokens for a Win, TB 2, and down. That's literally the same scenario you're describing, only it benefits the other side. I find this to be a hypocritical suggestion.
People should be rewarded for the progress they make in the game mode. Not for which they feel entitled based on all other areas of the game. In that model, some Players will have to win 3 times as many Matches to advance. That's ridiculous. I respect your input, but I disagree with that idea.
Wrong again: nobody has to win 3 times more than what they are winning now. If you can give an example where somebody needs to win 3 times more then what they need to win now, I am all ears.
Essentially, they decided that deck-based match making discouraged players from bringing their best champs to BG, which they felt was counter-intentional. Well, the current system discourages players from even ranking up champions at all, because lower (pseudo) prestige accounts have much easier match making.
It doesn't even matter to what degree this is true. It is observationally true in sufficiently many cases that no one can possibly argue it isn't happening. This follows the trajectory of Alliance War, where even I needed a sufficiently high level of evidence before accepting that the prestige matching problem - which I knew to be possible but did not think was widespread - turned out to be literally all over the place. We've seen an increasing awareness of this problem, and as more players are exposed to it and more players start paying closer attention to it, the evidence will continue to pile up that the BG game mode penalizes roster progress. It gives players with low Cav rosters a far easier path through VT than Paragon rosters. And that is damaging to the game mode as a whole.
The difference is not small either. Let's compare just the trophy tokens a player might earn if they a) reach Platinum 3 vs b) completes the VT tracks and enters GT. That doesn't sound like a huge difference or advantage. But a player that reaches P3 gets 59,400 tokens. That's 25 track promotions.. A player that completes the entire VT track, which is just 16 more track promotions, gets 135,900.
That's almost two and a half times more tokens, while facing unquestionably lower caliber competition. Even if you think their matches are equally fair as high roster players that's still 2.3x the rewards for "equal" effort.
Whether UCs facing UCs is just as fair as Paragons facing Paragons and UCs never having to face consistently stronger competition is a red herring. We can argue that to death, but the situation is so bad it doesn't even matter. We can simply concede that the individual fights are "fair" and ask the obvious question: why are lower roster accounts getting more rewards for the same "fair" fights? At best what lower roster players should be getting for their competition, if you say it is equal, is equal access to rewards. They most certainly do not have equal access to rewards. They are *overtaking* higher strength roster accounts. And not by a little. Compared to the rewards players who are breezing into GT with rosters a quarter as strong as mine, to a first order approximation I'm getting nothing for my BG effort.
As shown in other posts, small chances in win percentage have dramatic impact on progress rate, and because token rewards get larger at higher tiers small changes in progress rate are amplified in larger differences in token reward earning rates. Lower roster match making allowing them to dodge stronger accounts equates to higher win percentages, which translates to faster VT progress, which generates higher reward rates. And it doesn't take much to swing the pendulum far in the other direction.
This is so spot on I actually have nothing to add.
Dr. Zola
Regardless, this has gone back-and-forth enough for my tastes. There have been some good points made and I don't discredit them. I still maintain that I'm not opposed to other ideas, as I don't really have an agenda with my views.
A few main points for me still remain. There has to be some kind of starting point to prevent manipulating the Matches. I don't think many people disputed that.
If the Rewards are the argument, then address them in a way that pays out appropriately, but do it in a way that doesn't prevent people from earning their progress and not based on what Title they have. That just discourages people from even playing. I've seen what's happened to people on the other end in War, and it's not pretty. One game mode should never be monopolized by any demographic.
As for my other point, I think that won't get anywhere, because I still feel there's a lack of onus on the part of people not winning their own Matches. If they're at the top of the Title chain, with the most experience and skill, then they should be able to manage getting out of the VT. Regardless of who else is. I'll take that to the proverbial grave.
Then perhaps it could become a sort of ranking metric to determine your matchups with each VT progression point gated to your individual rating and you face others in that same tier.
Win lots, move forward. Dont win enough, stay where you are. Dont win much, dont earn many rewards.
Random, dispassionate. Fair to UC and Paragon alike.
So the only way that more medals (and thus progression) are introduced into this closed system are 1) to change the break even mark for medals, or 2) have a whole bunch of accounts willing to lose matches to help others progress.
A system with +2 for a win, -1 for a loss, and more medals needed to progress would incentivize more players to play because losses aren’t as costly. Many of those players might currently be frustrated by grinders and whales who outclass them from the jump, but if the player pool was broader, they’d have more peers to compete against and be *even* more interested in playing.
The idea that “everyone would get to GC” is a fallacy. This mode is incredibly time consuming. It still requires understanding of the nodes, strategy in deck building and champ selection, and skill. This change just makes VT slightly less of a zero-sum game.
@Kabam Miike you need to read this, fella.Essentially, they decided that deck-based match making discouraged players from bringing their best champs to BG, which they felt was counter-intentional. Well, the current system discourages players from even ranking up champions at all, because lower (pseudo) prestige accounts have much easier match making.
It doesn't even matter to what degree this is true. It is observationally true in sufficiently many cases that no one can possibly argue it isn't happening. This follows the trajectory of Alliance War, where even I needed a sufficiently high level of evidence before accepting that the prestige matching problem - which I knew to be possible but did not think was widespread - turned out to be literally all over the place. We've seen an increasing awareness of this problem, and as more players are exposed to it and more players start paying closer attention to it, the evidence will continue to pile up that the BG game mode penalizes roster progress. It gives players with low Cav rosters a far easier path through VT than Paragon rosters. And that is damaging to the game mode as a whole.
The difference is not small either. Let's compare just the trophy tokens a player might earn if they a) reach Platinum 3 vs b) completes the VT tracks and enters GT. That doesn't sound like a huge difference or advantage. But a player that reaches P3 gets 59,400 tokens. That's 25 track promotions.. A player that completes the entire VT track, which is just 16 more track promotions, gets 135,900.
That's almost two and a half times more tokens, while facing unquestionably lower caliber competition. Even if you think their matches are equally fair as high roster players that's still 2.3x the rewards for "equal" effort.
Whether UCs facing UCs is just as fair as Paragons facing Paragons and UCs never having to face consistently stronger competition is a red herring. We can argue that to death, but the situation is so bad it doesn't even matter. We can simply concede that the individual fights are "fair" and ask the obvious question: why are lower roster accounts getting more rewards for the same "fair" fights? At best what lower roster players should be getting for their competition, if you say it is equal, is equal access to rewards. They most certainly do not have equal access to rewards. They are *overtaking* higher strength roster accounts. And not by a little. Compared to the rewards players who are breezing into GT with rosters a quarter as strong as mine, to a first order approximation I'm getting nothing for my BG effort.
As shown in other posts, small chances in win percentage have dramatic impact on progress rate, and because token rewards get larger at higher tiers small changes in progress rate are amplified in larger differences in token reward earning rates. Lower roster match making allowing them to dodge stronger accounts equates to higher win percentages, which translates to faster VT progress, which generates higher reward rates. And it doesn't take much to swing the pendulum far in the other direction.
I think something that hasn't been suggested that could help with the balance is changing how the BG Store works. Items themselves can be restricted by progression or just have different quantities per week but the cost should be standardized amongst all progression titles. That makes it more justifiable when people say that we are fighting for the same rewards.
End game Paragons getting out of the VT in a weekend is how it should be. I suggested starting people at different levels, which you poo-pood because then they'd have to send out free rewards so this is my solution.
TBH having both a VT and a GC is the real problem. It should be one or the other (I'd go with VT tiers but GC scoring). The rewards should be split up into the season rewards as opposed to when you reach a new tier (because you should be able to drop tiers if you lose enough). Then every season you either stay at the same points/tier or have it reduced slightly (NOT to 0) so it would take a few seasons to climb to the top and new players would be facing other new players at low tiers. I'd also make seasons 1 week long so each meta is its own season. You would have to complete a certain amount of BGs each season to qualify for season rewards (just like AW so that should be pretty easily possible) to avoid people getting free rewards every season. IMO, this would make BGs a lot more fun, and the reduced rewards (per week instead of per month) would make slumps or bad matches not hurt so much.
Re-read the post.
"Muggles in their rightful place." comes to mind.
Easy fix , stop crying , stop playing , its that so hard to stop playing a game? I have same problem but i saw i will just waste my time and deleted the game reinstall next month again like that ? Again delete , trust me its not that hard
I also said people should be able to earn their way up through their own efforts. All that does is propel the people higher up much faster than anyone else. That's equally as wrong. You want people to be rewarded based on their progress in the game mode. Not based on their Title.
It makes no sense that it is harder for me to progress on the account that I have spent more time, money and effort on...