Trying to have a discussion about Paragon BGs with a Cav who refuses to admit that he doesn't know what he doesn't know is pointless. Everyone knows that he's wrong but for some reason, he won't admit it. IN fact he'll just double down and try to overwhelm you with post after post until you just give up.
I said that a bit ago which is why I've stopped responding to him. I do find it funny that this thread has turned into a grounded wisdom vs. everyone else thread though. But then again, that's nothing out of the ordinary for him.
I'm going to choose to rise above throwing mud, but I can't ignore the fact that you are making a conscious effort to avoid the whole, and instead focus solely on the "fair match" aspect.
So to that end, are you willing to say right now, that if Kabam creates progression based brackets, and reduces the rewards a Thronebreaker has access to, every step of the way, no matter how significant those reductions are, that you will never make a single comment complaining about them?
The Rewards have never been my argument, and I've already indicated I'm not out for any final result. I think you'll find I rarely say much about Rewards, other than the occasional comment that they're out of proportion to what something is. It's been quite some time since I've made such an assertion. They've been pretty on-point IMO. As for whether I would take issue or not, that entirely depends on whether they're appropriate for where a Player is at. Too much is too much, to little is too little. My views in this discussion are not at all self-serving. I play the VT, get a few thousand Shards, and am happy with that. Once again, people are fixated on the Rewards, which I understand is a part of a competitive game mode. No question. My concerns are about looking at all sides. The gaming experience for everyone. Not one or the other. Unfortunately these discussions only have one view at times. What I have no time for is another mode that becomes just like War. Overpowered Allies "taking it easy" with lower Ratings, vast mismatches at lower ends that are justified on here with War Rating being similar, Alliances not even caring if they play or not because their Alliances are a culmination of Players from Para to UC, and the Rewards aren't worth a month of effort, and the only people satisfied are the ones claiming a stake in the entire game mode. That's not competition. That's justified ignorance.
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.
You did not say Paragons and TBs were progressing faster, implying they don't deserve to (whether they do or not is an open question). You said UCs would be stuck unable to progress, when the overwhelming evidence is that a) they are not stuck now, and b) depleting their competition even more could not possibly cause them to progress slower.
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.
You did not say Paragons and TBs were progressing faster, implying they don't deserve to (whether they do or not is an open question). You said UCs would be stuck unable to progress, when the overwhelming evidence is that a) they are not stuck now, and b) depleting their competition even more could not possibly cause them to progress slower.
In theory, I don't believe in a system that allows the highest to progress faster than the lowest. That kind of arc doesn't allow anyone to move up. Specific to this, you can't accelerate the highest demographic without slowing down the lower ones.
War is not the same as this game mode. If it becomes the same, I'm not bothering with it myself, and I have enough counters.
There are many ways in which alliance war is different than battlegrounds. But just saying it is different is meaningless. That can be used to nullify all comparisons. You compare things to other things all the time. Those things are never identical. Is saying "but they are not the same" enough to refute the comparison?
Alliance war and Battlegrounds are sufficiently similar in one respect: individual competitors (players, alliances) compete in head to head match ups, but the overwhelming majority of the rewards does not come from wins or losses, they come from a progress ladder. The alliance that gets the most rewards is *not* the best alliance in alliance war. It is the alliance that scores the most points. When AW used a prestige-based match making system, it was theoretically possible for two very (relatively) weak alliances to only match other weak alliances, rise in rating to tier 1 or 2, win all their wars against similarly weak competition, and outscore the strongest alliances in the game. That's intrinsically unfair, or rather it defies the vast overwhelming majority of players' sense of fairness.
There was a train of thought that suggested prestige matching was harmless and beneficial. Beneficial because alliances always matched against "fair" competition, and harmless because there was seemingly no way for those match ups to elevate extremely weak alliances to high tiers with high mulitpliers. However, in reality, it was demonstrated that prestige matching created invisible "silos" where alliances were insulated from ever matching against stronger alliances. Over time, this "protection bias" meant they could climb the ratings ladder without actually facing comparable rating alliances.
It is important to note that it isn't my *opinion* this is unfair. It is an objectively true statement, because of what ratings themselves actually mean. When we use ELO to calculate rating and perform matching, we have to accept the mathematical underpinnings of the ELO system. And the ELO system is constructed with mathematical algorithms that have meaning. When two alliances have the same ELO rating, the math is making a prediction: it predicts that the two allianes, if they were to face each other, would win about 50% of the time. That's what ELO rating means. When I have 1700 and another alliance has 1800, that means something. It means the 1800 is more likely to win, and you can *calculate* the probability of victory. ELO falls apart completely if you use it outside of its well-defined structure. When an alliance wins, they gain rating and when they lose they lose rating. The gains and losses aren't arbitrary: they are calculated to allow rating to converge on the correct values.
So when alliance war was matching by ELO, *BUT* segrregating alliances by prestige in such a way that two different alliances with the same rating would never face each other, that was essentially breaking the math of the ELO system. That segregation meant that the ratings themselves ceased to mean anything. An alliance with a 2800 rating didn't mean anything, because they could have arrived at that rating by match ups that broke the ELO math. And when Kabam used those ratings to confer point multipliers to the alliances, they were literally just making stuff up. Because when they said "this alliance should get a x7 multiplier and that alliance should also get a x7 point multiplier because they have the same ELO rating" ELO begged to differ. ELO said "nu huh, Kabam, you didn't play by my rules, so you don't get to use my numbers. Those two alliances might have the same numerical rating, but they don't mean the same thing, any more than comparing one player's prestige with another players street address."
The proof that ELO+prestige match making is broken relies on no property of alliance war, other than the two presumptions that we have competitors facing each other one on one, and we have rewards based on a progress ladder. ANY game mode that obeys those two properties will find ELO+prestige match making irrevocably broken.
The question is: is prestige matching *alone* equally broken? Well, prestige matching is ELO+prestige, but with ELO gone. In other words, it is a broken system, but with the added bonus of not even accounting for how strong the competitor is. We don't track or match ELO rating, which means we ignore how many times they win or lose, which means the system ignores strength of competition. It reduces to setting up the March Madness basketball tournament by looking at the average hat size of the competitors.
I can't mathematically prove that is broken. But I feel I am in the driver's seat if anyone wants to try to convince the playerbase as a whole that matching each other in BG by which player has the most nose hairs is the best way forward.
And if anyone is actually crazy enough to take that challenge, they can start by advocating for both alliance war AND Battlegrounds Victory Track to also match by prestige. I'm sure at least 30% of the VT players would be more than happy to match this way. The lower 30% in prestige of course.
I'm not advocating anything, really. I've outlined my concerns. I've also addressed the idea that the Players in this Season have not earned their Rewards. That much is indisputable because they quite literally have. I'm not pushing for Prestige being the factor. I'm outlining the lack of other perspectives in the whole Rewards argument, and in essence, people aren't being prohibited from earning the same in the current system. No one is preventing them from winning their own Matches. I'm not disputing that something needs to be revisited in terms of the Rewards, as well as the ability to push above the Prestige. I just have very specific concerns, and I've outlined them about as specifically as I can.
If there isn’t a change to matchmaking, it would at least be useful to be able to see someone’s match profile, either by displaying wins/losses against progression, title, account rating, prestige or otherwise. There’s a comparable set of data kept on everyone’s profile already (although it’s usage is pretty much zilch):
This match profile could change as the season progresses and would reflect the *difficulty* of a Summoner’s BG matches. Then the players—and the team—could gauge whether there actually is an advantage embedded in the matchmaking system.
Who knows? Maybe it could even be useful in adding something like quality points at seasons end based on something like “difficulty of schedule” in BGs.
Who was disputing it? I was present for the Prestige issue with War. I know the effects. Nor was I arguing that it's a perfect system. That doesn't mean there aren't other sides to the current situation I can't point out. I've clarified numerous times I'm not pushing for that to be a solution. I'm simply being a voice to other aspects that are being ignored.
If Kabam wanted to avoid big miss matches for small accounts at season start, they should implement Prestige matchmaking only at first 4-5 tiers maximum. Example: Bronze3 matches within 500 Prestige difference Bronze2 matches within 1000 Prestige difference Bronze1 matches within 1500 Prestige difference Silver3 matches within 2000 Prestige difference Silver2 matches within 2500 Prestige difference From Silver1 matches fully random, like GC. You can’t have Prestige matchmaking all across 16 VT tiers, and give low accounts an easy path to GC, with the “big miss match protection” reasoning. These 16 VT tiers+ GC ranked rewards are serious to ignore by anyone. You can’t handle all these rewards to small accounts, because they need to be “protected” from bigger accounts. Whether they face the competition, or they get different rewards. If Kabam and lower accounts want to have Prestige matchmaking, they should have rewards tied to Prestige also. So simple.
I've already suggested that idea. If the current system were to stay, you could regulate the Rewards based on Titles, for example. Appropriate them based on where a Player is at. I'm also not opposed to your suggestion. Whether 5 is reasonable or more, is up for debate, but something along the lines of balancing the starting point. I think there are a number of suggestions that might be workable.
I've already suggested that idea. If the current system were to stay, you could regulate the Rewards based on Titles, for example. Appropriate them based on where a Player is at. I'm also not opposed to your suggestion. Whether 5 is reasonable or more, is up for debate, but something along the lines of balancing the starting point. I think there are a number of suggestions that might be workable.
How do you go from raging against higher titles getting better rewards being unfair all of yesterday to now suggesting to regulate the Rewards based on Titles? This is why no one can take you seriously. You argue both sides of a topic just for the sake of arguing and to get a rise out of people. If only there was a term for someone who did that on internet forums...
You're talking about giving more Tokens for fighting specific Titles. Not what I suggested at all. I suggested adjusting the payouts slightly, based on what Title people have. If you can point out where I raged about anyone getting Rewards, I'd be happy to see it. I made the point that in the current system, if people were so skilled, advanced, and deserving of the best Rewards, they should be winning their own Matches now.
You're talking about giving more Tokens for fighting specific Titles. Not what I suggested at all. I suggested adjusting the payouts slightly, based on what Title people have. If you can point out where I raged about anyone getting Rewards, I'd be happy to see it. I made the point that in the current system, if people were so skilled, advanced, and deserving of the best Rewards, they should be winning their own Matches now.
At this stage, I’m confused about what you are for or against. I realize you have a lot of passion for the issue, but I don’t think I’m alone in finding your statements contradictory at times.
Perhaps the thing to do is to let the thread percolate for a while and see what else turns up. Not an attack, just honestly interested in seeing whether anyone has other decent, actionable ideas the team can consider.
I'm pretty clear, and I've been forward with the fact that I'm open to suggestions. When you're altering the amount of Tokens earned, you're not just affecting the Rewards. You're affecting the ability for Players to advance. With quite a difference. Even in the instances where, for example, a Cav came up against a Para, one side would gain more Tokens for the Win, and that would cause further dissention. Altering the Rewards is addressing the issue directly. A Cav would be able to earn less than a Para, overall. What amount that would be is open for debate, but the Top Payout would be appropriated to the Title. That would also concur with encouraging people to advance, the more they advance, the more they could earn in BGs. As for my latter comment, I was being slightly retaliative in tone, sure. I still think it's a logical point that there's some onus on the part of people losing their own Matches.
I'm pretty clear, and I've been forward with the fact that I'm open to suggestions. When you're altering the amount of Tokens earned, you're not just affecting the Rewards. You're affecting the ability for Players to advance. With quite a difference. Even in the instances where, for example, a Cav came up against a Para, one side would gain more Tokens for the Win, and that would cause further dissention. Altering the Rewards is addressing the issue directly. A Cav would be able to earn less than a Para, overall. What amount that would be is open for debate, but the Top Payout would be appropriated to the Title. That would also concur with encouraging people to advance, the more they advance, the more they could earn in BGs. As for my latter comment, I was being slightly retaliative in tone, sure. I still think it's a logical point that there's some onus on the part of people losing their own Matches.
That’s true!! If cavalier wins, they gain 3 tokens and if paragon wins, they gain 1 token. Are you saying the cavalier doesn’t deserve more tokens for a win against a tough opponent?
I'm pretty clear, and I've been forward with the fact that I'm open to suggestions. When you're altering the amount of Tokens earned, you're not just affecting the Rewards. You're affecting the ability for Players to advance. With quite a difference. Even in the instances where, for example, a Cav came up against a Para, one side would gain more Tokens for the Win, and that would cause further dissention. Altering the Rewards is addressing the issue directly. A Cav would be able to earn less than a Para, overall. What amount that would be is open for debate, but the Top Payout would be appropriated to the Title. That would also concur with encouraging people to advance, the more they advance, the more they could earn in BGs. As for my latter comment, I was being slightly retaliative in tone, sure. I still think it's a logical point that there's some onus on the part of people losing their own Matches.
That’s true!! If cavalier wins, they gain 3 tokens and if paragon wins, they gain 1 token. Are you saying the cavalier doesn’t deserve more tokens for a win against a tough opponent?
I said I'm about fairness on all ends. That's also a wolf in sheep's clothing. I'm a little more astute than that.
Bro this type of thinking is wrong. You are just looking from your perspective. If prestige matchmaking is not there then a person who started playing mcoc 2-3 months ago will never be able to reach gladiator circuit, it will be impossible even. So, why should they keep playing mcoc if they can't enjoy the best content of the game. If prestige matchmaking is not there then the rich will get richer and low level account will not be able to grow faster. Do you want mcoc to be ruled by a high prestige players only. A game shouldn't work that way. It should be enjoyable to all.
This decision/change is good for mcoc community and it's growth.
Bro this type of thinking is wrong. You are just looking from your perspective. If prestige matchmaking is not there then a person who started playing mcoc 2-3 months ago will never be able to reach gladiator circuit, it will be impossible even. So, why should they keep playing mcoc if they can't enjoy the best content of the game. If prestige matchmaking is not there then the rich will get richer and low level account will not be able to grow faster. Do you want mcoc to be ruled by a high prestige players only. A game shouldn't work that way. It should be enjoyable to all.
This decision/change is good for mcoc community and it's growth.
PS: I am not a low prestige player.
Why should a person who's played for 2-3 months expect to make the GC? That's ridiculous.
Bro this type of thinking is wrong. You are just looking from your perspective. If prestige matchmaking is not there then a person who started playing mcoc 2-3 months ago will never be able to reach gladiator circuit, it will be impossible even. So, why should they keep playing mcoc if they can't enjoy the best content of the game. If prestige matchmaking is not there then the rich will get richer and low level account will not be able to grow faster. Do you want mcoc to be ruled by a high prestige players only. A game shouldn't work that way. It should be enjoyable to all.
This decision/change is good for mcoc community and it's growth.
PS: I am not a low prestige player.
You think that a player of 2-3 month deserves all victory track and then GC rewards when there are literally batches of Paragon players playing for 5+ years ago who never got out of victory track this season due to this matchmaking system?
Your thinking is on a whole new level of entitled and participation trophy mentality. Do you also think that the Chicago Bears, the NFL team who had worst record in all of football deserved to be invited to the playoffs?
Bro this type of thinking is wrong. You are just looking from your perspective. If prestige matchmaking is not there then a person who started playing mcoc 2-3 months ago will never be able to reach gladiator circuit, it will be impossible even. So, why should they keep playing mcoc if they can't enjoy the best content of the game. If prestige matchmaking is not there then the rich will get richer and low level account will not be able to grow faster. Do you want mcoc to be ruled by a high prestige players only. A game shouldn't work that way. It should be enjoyable to all.
This decision/change is good for mcoc community and it's growth.
PS: I am not a low prestige player.
Why the heck a person who started playing mcoc 2-3 months ago should be able to reach Gladiator Circuit? This is entitlement at it’s finest 😂 We already have 6-7k prestige UC accounts that got all VT and GC ranked rewards. Meanwhile ~40% of Paragon accounts that did Battlegrounds, were left at some VT tier, losing these rewards, because they just had high prestige. And that’s a pretty conservative estimation. That percentage might be higher. Why these new accounts, should have access to the higher rewards the game has to offer, without having an account that can compete for them and match the competition?
Whilst I'd like random match making, and for the better accounts (combination of account strength and skill) to progress quicker than new accounts, it doesn't really matter too much. If smaller accounts do have an easier ride and progress quicker, the extra rewards they potentially get only really benefit them if they invest them in their accounts, their prestige will likely grow and they get matched against tougher people next time, so it's only short term gains really.
Even so, feel random matchmaking within your current tier is only fair way to go. But I still enjoyed this season, got to gladiator circuit last day and I actually enjoyed electric defense, got to try some new champs.
Comments
As for whether I would take issue or not, that entirely depends on whether they're appropriate for where a Player is at. Too much is too much, to little is too little. My views in this discussion are not at all self-serving. I play the VT, get a few thousand Shards, and am happy with that.
Once again, people are fixated on the Rewards, which I understand is a part of a competitive game mode. No question. My concerns are about looking at all sides. The gaming experience for everyone. Not one or the other. Unfortunately these discussions only have one view at times.
What I have no time for is another mode that becomes just like War. Overpowered Allies "taking it easy" with lower Ratings, vast mismatches at lower ends that are justified on here with War Rating being similar, Alliances not even caring if they play or not because their Alliances are a culmination of Players from Para to UC, and the Rewards aren't worth a month of effort, and the only people satisfied are the ones claiming a stake in the entire game mode. That's not competition. That's justified ignorance.
Specific to this, you can't accelerate the highest demographic without slowing down the lower ones.
Alliance war and Battlegrounds are sufficiently similar in one respect: individual competitors (players, alliances) compete in head to head match ups, but the overwhelming majority of the rewards does not come from wins or losses, they come from a progress ladder. The alliance that gets the most rewards is *not* the best alliance in alliance war. It is the alliance that scores the most points. When AW used a prestige-based match making system, it was theoretically possible for two very (relatively) weak alliances to only match other weak alliances, rise in rating to tier 1 or 2, win all their wars against similarly weak competition, and outscore the strongest alliances in the game. That's intrinsically unfair, or rather it defies the vast overwhelming majority of players' sense of fairness.
There was a train of thought that suggested prestige matching was harmless and beneficial. Beneficial because alliances always matched against "fair" competition, and harmless because there was seemingly no way for those match ups to elevate extremely weak alliances to high tiers with high mulitpliers. However, in reality, it was demonstrated that prestige matching created invisible "silos" where alliances were insulated from ever matching against stronger alliances. Over time, this "protection bias" meant they could climb the ratings ladder without actually facing comparable rating alliances.
It is important to note that it isn't my *opinion* this is unfair. It is an objectively true statement, because of what ratings themselves actually mean. When we use ELO to calculate rating and perform matching, we have to accept the mathematical underpinnings of the ELO system. And the ELO system is constructed with mathematical algorithms that have meaning. When two alliances have the same ELO rating, the math is making a prediction: it predicts that the two allianes, if they were to face each other, would win about 50% of the time. That's what ELO rating means. When I have 1700 and another alliance has 1800, that means something. It means the 1800 is more likely to win, and you can *calculate* the probability of victory. ELO falls apart completely if you use it outside of its well-defined structure. When an alliance wins, they gain rating and when they lose they lose rating. The gains and losses aren't arbitrary: they are calculated to allow rating to converge on the correct values.
So when alliance war was matching by ELO, *BUT* segrregating alliances by prestige in such a way that two different alliances with the same rating would never face each other, that was essentially breaking the math of the ELO system. That segregation meant that the ratings themselves ceased to mean anything. An alliance with a 2800 rating didn't mean anything, because they could have arrived at that rating by match ups that broke the ELO math. And when Kabam used those ratings to confer point multipliers to the alliances, they were literally just making stuff up. Because when they said "this alliance should get a x7 multiplier and that alliance should also get a x7 point multiplier because they have the same ELO rating" ELO begged to differ. ELO said "nu huh, Kabam, you didn't play by my rules, so you don't get to use my numbers. Those two alliances might have the same numerical rating, but they don't mean the same thing, any more than comparing one player's prestige with another players street address."
The proof that ELO+prestige match making is broken relies on no property of alliance war, other than the two presumptions that we have competitors facing each other one on one, and we have rewards based on a progress ladder. ANY game mode that obeys those two properties will find ELO+prestige match making irrevocably broken.
The question is: is prestige matching *alone* equally broken? Well, prestige matching is ELO+prestige, but with ELO gone. In other words, it is a broken system, but with the added bonus of not even accounting for how strong the competitor is. We don't track or match ELO rating, which means we ignore how many times they win or lose, which means the system ignores strength of competition. It reduces to setting up the March Madness basketball tournament by looking at the average hat size of the competitors.
I can't mathematically prove that is broken. But I feel I am in the driver's seat if anyone wants to try to convince the playerbase as a whole that matching each other in BG by which player has the most nose hairs is the best way forward.
And if anyone is actually crazy enough to take that challenge, they can start by advocating for both alliance war AND Battlegrounds Victory Track to also match by prestige. I'm sure at least 30% of the VT players would be more than happy to match this way. The lower 30% in prestige of course.
I'm not pushing for Prestige being the factor. I'm outlining the lack of other perspectives in the whole Rewards argument, and in essence, people aren't being prohibited from earning the same in the current system. No one is preventing them from winning their own Matches.
I'm not disputing that something needs to be revisited in terms of the Rewards, as well as the ability to push above the Prestige. I just have very specific concerns, and I've outlined them about as specifically as I can.
This match profile could change as the season progresses and would reflect the *difficulty* of a Summoner’s BG matches. Then the players—and the team—could gauge whether there actually is an advantage embedded in the matchmaking system.
Who knows? Maybe it could even be useful in adding something like quality points at seasons end based on something like “difficulty of schedule” in BGs.
Dr. Zola
Example:
Bronze3 matches within 500 Prestige difference
Bronze2 matches within 1000 Prestige difference
Bronze1 matches within 1500 Prestige difference
Silver3 matches within 2000 Prestige difference
Silver2 matches within 2500 Prestige difference
From Silver1 matches fully random, like GC.
You can’t have Prestige matchmaking all across 16 VT tiers, and give low accounts an easy path to GC, with the “big miss match protection” reasoning.
These 16 VT tiers+ GC ranked rewards are serious to ignore by anyone.
You can’t handle all these rewards to small accounts, because they need to be “protected” from bigger accounts.
Whether they face the competition, or they get different rewards.
If Kabam and lower accounts want to have Prestige matchmaking, they should have rewards tied to Prestige also.
So simple.
I'm also not opposed to your suggestion. Whether 5 is reasonable or more, is up for debate, but something along the lines of balancing the starting point.
I think there are a number of suggestions that might be workable.
If you can point out where I raged about anyone getting Rewards, I'd be happy to see it. I made the point that in the current system, if people were so skilled, advanced, and deserving of the best Rewards, they should be winning their own Matches now.
Perhaps the thing to do is to let the thread percolate for a while and see what else turns up. Not an attack, just honestly interested in seeing whether anyone has other decent, actionable ideas the team can consider.
Dr. Zola
When you're altering the amount of Tokens earned, you're not just affecting the Rewards. You're affecting the ability for Players to advance. With quite a difference. Even in the instances where, for example, a Cav came up against a Para, one side would gain more Tokens for the Win, and that would cause further dissention.
Altering the Rewards is addressing the issue directly. A Cav would be able to earn less than a Para, overall. What amount that would be is open for debate, but the Top Payout would be appropriated to the Title. That would also concur with encouraging people to advance, the more they advance, the more they could earn in BGs.
As for my latter comment, I was being slightly retaliative in tone, sure. I still think it's a logical point that there's some onus on the part of people losing their own Matches.
If prestige matchmaking is not there then the rich will get richer and low level account will not be able to grow faster. Do you want mcoc to be ruled by a high prestige players only. A game shouldn't work that way. It should be enjoyable to all.
This decision/change is good for mcoc community and it's growth.
PS: I am not a low prestige player.
Although perhaps we need to have a separate dialog about why someone who started playing MCoC 2-3 months ago can't complete Thronebreaker EQ too.
Your thinking is on a whole new level of entitled and participation trophy mentality. Do you also think that the Chicago Bears, the NFL team who had worst record in all of football deserved to be invited to the playoffs?
This is entitlement at it’s finest 😂
We already have 6-7k prestige UC accounts that got all VT and GC ranked rewards.
Meanwhile ~40% of Paragon accounts that did Battlegrounds, were left at some VT tier, losing these rewards, because they just had high prestige.
And that’s a pretty conservative estimation.
That percentage might be higher.
Why these new accounts, should have access to the higher rewards the game has to offer, without having an account that can compete for them and match the competition?
Even so, feel random matchmaking within your current tier is only fair way to go. But I still enjoyed this season, got to gladiator circuit last day and I actually enjoyed electric defense, got to try some new champs.