There's really no arguing that DNA. Although some may try.
Perhaps, but something I learned from the Alliance War match situation is that things don't change when one person makes a logical argument. That's how it works in math text books. Once you prove something, it isn't up for debate anymore. In fact, things don't even often change when a lot of people *buy* your argument. People agreeing with you is insufficient. Things change when your perspective eventually seeps into enough people's minds that they stop seeing it as *your* argument and start seeing it as *their* argument. They don't just agree, they see it in the same way independent of anything you have to say.
This takes time, and exposure to the ideas. It isn't for nothing for people to be exposed to the problem and the perspective, and see how non-marginal and widespread the thought process is or is becoming.
Alliance war changed when enough players started saying "yeah, why is it like that, that doesn't make sense." When enough of that reaches the developers, then *they* start asking, does it actually make sense. And when the right dev decides it doesn't make sense, it gets changed.
There's really no arguing that DNA. Although some may try.
Perhaps, but something I learned from the Alliance War match situation is that things don't change when one person makes a logical argument. That's how it works in math text books. Once you prove something, it isn't up for debate anymore. In fact, things don't even often change when a lot of people *buy* your argument. People agreeing with you is insufficient. Things change when your perspective eventually seeps into enough people's minds that they stop seeing it as *your* argument and start seeing it as *their* argument. They don't just agree, they see it in the same way independent of anything you have to say.
This takes time, and exposure to the ideas. It isn't for nothing for people to be exposed to the problem and the perspective, and see how non-marginal and widespread the thought process is or is becoming.
Alliance war changed when enough players started saying "yeah, why is it like that, that doesn't make sense." When enough of that reaches the developers, then *they* start asking, does it actually make sense. And when the right dev decides it doesn't make sense, it gets changed.
Spot on. We need the people who are disproportionately benefitting from the system to reinvest those rewards back into their roster and then get stuck facing more difficult matches and subsequently losing more. The system is still fresh enough that most people haven't actually experienced this yet although it seems like an inevitable outcome with time.
The problem is, I'm not arguing for a Prestige-based system. Perhaps that's been the impression based on my points made, but I recognize the issues. That doesn't mean there aren't other aspects to the conversation I would like to discuss.
The problem is, I'm not arguing for a Prestige-based system. Perhaps that's been the impression based on my points made, but I recognize the issues. That doesn't mean there aren't other aspects to the conversation I would like to discuss.
You are suggesting the current system is fair to lower progress players, and even has desirable properties for them. It doesn't matter if you are not defending the entire system as a whole, because that's irrelevant. The specific individual properties you are defending are explicitly the properties others want to change. Even if you don't support the current system in its entirety, if you support those properties, you are a priori an opponent of the changes people want to make.
There's really no arguing that DNA. Although some may try.
Perhaps, but something I learned from the Alliance War match situation is that things don't change when one person makes a logical argument. That's how it works in math text books. Once you prove something, it isn't up for debate anymore. In fact, things don't even often change when a lot of people *buy* your argument. People agreeing with you is insufficient. Things change when your perspective eventually seeps into enough people's minds that they stop seeing it as *your* argument and start seeing it as *their* argument. They don't just agree, they see it in the same way independent of anything you have to say.
This takes time, and exposure to the ideas. It isn't for nothing for people to be exposed to the problem and the perspective, and see how non-marginal and widespread the thought process is or is becoming.
Alliance war changed when enough players started saying "yeah, why is it like that, that doesn't make sense." When enough of that reaches the developers, then *they* start asking, does it actually make sense. And when the right dev decides it doesn't make sense, it gets changed.
All these are well said, but meanwhile many players are losing the most valuable rewards in game, that other claim instead of them. Change will happen. As it happened at AW. Anything that is unfair is changing eventually. It’s a matter of time. But the question is how long it will take? Do we have to wait again multiple seasons like AW, for Kabam to realise the obvious. Prestige matchmaking is broken, it always was and always will be. *Except the case, rewards are tiered and proportional to Prestige also, which doesn’t happen in this occasion* That’s the only way it can be fair. It doesn’t takes to be a genius to understand it. And makes someone wonder how Kabam can still ignore that. They can’t claim we don’t know. Same happened to AW couple of years ago. They know what’s happening. The problem though will be when more people, realise what’s happening. Because, many are still ignoring how matchmaking works.
The problem is, I'm not arguing for a Prestige-based system. Perhaps that's been the impression based on my points made, but I recognize the issues. That doesn't mean there aren't other aspects to the conversation I would like to discuss.
You are suggesting the current system is fair to lower progress players, and even has desirable properties for them. It doesn't matter if you are not defending the entire system as a whole, because that's irrelevant. The specific individual properties you are defending are explicitly the properties others want to change. Even if you don't support the current system in its entirety, if you support those properties, you are a priori an opponent of the changes people want to make.
I'm making the same points I've made previously in these discussions, and they're still brushed aside. Regardless of the outcome of change, people are STILL not owning their own results. They're still discrediting the abilities that people have shown, and they're still using one aspect to justify the other. Do I understand what people are saying? Yes. I get that people are upset because lower Players are advancing to the GC faster, and how they're indicating that's a broken system. That doesn't mean there's not other sides to this situation that aren't being addressed. I don't want either side earning Rewards for which they haven't earned. Not just one. I don't want a system that is advantageous to anyone at the expense of fairness for the other. I can assure you if the other side wasn't being heard, I would be a voice for that as well. System or not, if I'm not winning my Matches, that isn't entirely the fault of the system. I'm also responsible for my own losses. I'm sorry, but I don't justify Rewards for a system that is unreasonable for anyone. Top or bottom. What I don't want to happen is what happened with War. I don't care who agrees that's a fair system. It's not a fair system to everyone. I may be eutopian in my views, but I'm still holding on for something that is fair for all. Not one side because Shards and stuffs.
The problem is, I'm not arguing for a Prestige-based system. Perhaps that's been the impression based on my points made, but I recognize the issues. That doesn't mean there aren't other aspects to the conversation I would like to discuss.
You are suggesting the current system is fair to lower progress players, and even has desirable properties for them. It doesn't matter if you are not defending the entire system as a whole, because that's irrelevant. The specific individual properties you are defending are explicitly the properties others want to change. Even if you don't support the current system in its entirety, if you support those properties, you are a priori an opponent of the changes people want to make.
I'm making the same points I've made previously in these discussions, and they're still brushed aside. Regardless of the outcome of change, people are STILL not owning their own results. They're still discrediting the abilities that people have shown, and they're still using one aspect to justify the other. Do I understand what people are saying? Yes. I get that people are upset because lower Players are advancing to the GC faster, and how they're indicating that's a broken system. That doesn't mean there's not other sides to this situation that aren't being addressed. I don't want either side earning Rewards for which they haven't earned. Not just one. I don't want a system that is advantageous to anyone at the expense of fairness for the other. I can assure you if the other side wasn't being heard, I would be a voice for that as well. System or not, if I'm not winning my Matches, that isn't entirely the fault of the system. I'm also responsible for my own losses. I'm sorry, but I don't justify Rewards for a system that is unreasonable for anyone. Top or bottom. What I don't want to happen is what happened with War. I don't care who agrees that's a fair system. It's not a fair system to everyone. I may be eutopian in my views, but I'm still holding on for something that is fair for all. Not one side because Shards and stuffs.
Your not getting any support to your "points" and argument as your entire argument hinges on you trying to justify that far weaker rosters are getting far better rewards than those far stronger than them and who they don't have to face.
People aren't ignoring your "points", your argument that weaker rosters should get better rewards than those stronger who they don't have to face is just an extremely poor argument and impossible to justify.
There's really no arguing that DNA. Although some may try.
Perhaps, but something I learned from the Alliance War match situation is that things don't change when one person makes a logical argument. That's how it works in math text books. Once you prove something, it isn't up for debate anymore. In fact, things don't even often change when a lot of people *buy* your argument. People agreeing with you is insufficient. Things change when your perspective eventually seeps into enough people's minds that they stop seeing it as *your* argument and start seeing it as *their* argument. They don't just agree, they see it in the same way independent of anything you have to say.
This takes time, and exposure to the ideas. It isn't for nothing for people to be exposed to the problem and the perspective, and see how non-marginal and widespread the thought process is or is becoming.
Alliance war changed when enough players started saying "yeah, why is it like that, that doesn't make sense." When enough of that reaches the developers, then *they* start asking, does it actually make sense. And when the right dev decides it doesn't make sense, it gets changed.
All these are well said, but meanwhile many players are losing the most valuable rewards in game, that other claim instead of them. Change will happen. As it happened at AW. Anything that is unfair is changing eventually. It’s a matter of time. But the question is how long it will take? Do we have to wait again multiple seasons like AW, for Kabam to realise the obvious.
I can only control what I can control. I can advocate, I can explain, and I can promote. None of that will change the game tomorrow unfortunately, but it is the best option available to me.
I'm sorry, but I don't justify Rewards for a system that is unreasonable for anyone. Top or bottom. What I don't want to happen is what happened with War. I don't care who agrees that's a fair system. It's not a fair system to everyone. I may be eutopian in my views, but I'm still holding on for something that is fair for all. Not one side because Shards and stuffs.
We will never agree on what a fair system is, but what is objectively true with alliance war is your version of fairness was judged to be harmful to the game as a whole when it comes to Alliance War. You can continue to argue for whatever version of fairness you want to advocate for, and that's entirely your right, but a) advocating for it very indirectly by attacking the suggestions for improvement others make that has no logical traceability to your fairness position will not cause anyone to adopt it and b) there comes a point where you have to decide if arguing against the majority in an intractable position is a productive position to take. Fairness requires context: it isn't completely arbitrary but there are subjective elements to what the players actually value. The players collectively aren't "wrong" about what they value. They want what they want. The game honors that, or it eventually ceases to exist as a game.
If someone wants to argue that DC would be a better IP for the game than Marvel, that is their right but that would be a foolhardy position to take on these forums for this game. There's simply nowhere to go with that position. Similarly, if you want to argue that "fairness" in the game is about the one on one matches and not about the competition as a whole, that is also your right but that runs so counter to what most people believe to be fair that that would also be a position with no future.
Portraying your position as fighting for the little guy is not a strong position in the long run, because in the long run the little guy will discover that either their matches get harder or their rewards get smaller, and when confronted with that choice most will choose the first option. With the first option there's hope. With the second, there's no hope. Claiming to be supporting players who will reject that support as unhelpful would eventually ring hollow.
Sorry, but I don't agree that the War system is a more fair system. Fair for the people who are benefitting from it. Unfair for the people who have stopped playing, or lost motivation otherwise. People can form whatever opinions on those Players they like, but it's pretty sad when a game mode is commandeered by the people at the top, and the enjoyment is taken from anyone else. That's not an opinion I'm willing to change unless I see otherwise for Players who are outside of the Top Brackets. That's neither here nor there. I've also only argued one suggestion for this situation. I've indicated there are a number of workable solutions, and there have been some suggestions made.
Sorry, but I don't agree that the War system is a more fair system. Fair for the people who are benefitting from it. Unfair for the people who have stopped playing, or lost motivation otherwise. People can form whatever opinions on those Players they like, but it's pretty sad when a game mode is commandeered by the people at the top, and the enjoyment is taken from anyone else. That's not an opinion I'm willing to change unless I see otherwise for Players who are outside of the Top Brackets. That's neither here nor there. I've also only argued one suggestion for this situation. I've indicated there are a number of workable solutions, and there have been some suggestions made.
To be honest, that's sophistry. First of all, fairness has nothing to do with whether people *like* a thing. People can think a situation is fair but still unpalatable. Second, people were hating on the previous system and quitting war before the current one was put in, and I will bet my house that if the devs somehow implemented your definition of a fair system in Alliance war there would be even more people hating it and quitting the game mode. I doubt you would concede your fair system was unfair to them, and more unfair because more people disliked it.
I honestly have no idea what you mean by "commandeered by the people at the top" when referring to ELO matching. This is so antithetical to not only my own sense of competitive fairness, but *any* definition of fairness I've ever heard of, that I don't believe there's a rational response.
Actually, I have heard of such a definition. When people construct strawmen to try to characterize inclusive children's programs as being "participation trophies" they describe what you're describing as fair competition, specifically to belittle the entire idea. In other words, no human I know believe this. But there are people who use this idea to make other people look bad. That's how far removed from any notion of competitive fairness this sounds.
You mean when people were threatening to create dummy Allies just to take out weaker Alliances and they stepped in? Yes, I'd call that commandeering. I understand you have more knowledge of many aspects to these things, and I don't discredit that. However, I'm also willing to wager they have the feedback and data as well, concerning War. I'm not saying "No one cares.". I'm not that dramatic. I will express that I've seen my share of feedback, as well as Players I've experienced. They used to enjoy the competition. Not just getting easy Rewards. Now the game mode is so advantageous to one small demographic and scarcely worth a month of coordinating and efforts for others. It's no longer worth the stress. Couple that with the fact that they can get ambushed by the occasional Alliance that's 3 times their size in the lower Brackets, and it's entirely discouraging. They come here to point out the issue, and all they hear is "I see no problem here. War Ratings are the same.". One small thing like an insane Match doesn't create a problem. A culmination of issues in a game mode that motivates and drives one subset of Players, and you have something that really only serves the people who are dominating it. Anytime you make any group a priority and ignore the rest, you run the risk of alienating them and that has long-lasting effects. I'm not going to sit and argue that War has become a playground for the top. It's abundantly clear. The difference is, there are few voices that are heard that care.
You mean when people were threatening to create dummy Allies just to take out weaker Alliances and they stepped in? Yes, I'd call that commandeering. I understand you have more knowledge of many aspects to these things, and I don't discredit that. However, I'm also willing to wager they have the feedback and data as well, concerning War. I'm not saying "No one cares.". I'm not that dramatic. I will express that I've seen my share of feedback, as well as Players I've experienced. They used to enjoy the competition. Not just getting easy Rewards. Now the game mode is so advantageous to one small demographic and scarcely worth a month of coordinating and efforts for others. It's no longer worth the stress. Couple that with the fact that they can get ambushed by the occasional Alliance that's 3 times their size in the lower Brackets, and it's entirely discouraging. They come here to point out the issue, and all they hear is "I see no problem here. War Ratings are the same.". One small thing like an insane Match doesn't create a problem. A culmination of issues in a game mode that motivates and drives one subset of Players, and you have something that really only serves the people who are dominating it. Anytime you make any group a priority and ignore the rest, you run the risk of alienating them and that has long-lasting effects. I'm not going to sit and argue that War has become a playground for the top. It's abundantly clear. The difference is, there are few voices that are heard that care.
In 100 words or less, what exactly is your proposal for BG matchmaking?
You mean when people were threatening to create dummy Allies just to take out weaker Alliances and they stepped in? Yes, I'd call that commandeering. I understand you have more knowledge of many aspects to these things, and I don't discredit that. However, I'm also willing to wager they have the feedback and data as well, concerning War. I'm not saying "No one cares.". I'm not that dramatic. I will express that I've seen my share of feedback, as well as Players I've experienced. They used to enjoy the competition. Not just getting easy Rewards. Now the game mode is so advantageous to one small demographic and scarcely worth a month of coordinating and efforts for others. It's no longer worth the stress. Couple that with the fact that they can get ambushed by the occasional Alliance that's 3 times their size in the lower Brackets, and it's entirely discouraging. They come here to point out the issue, and all they hear is "I see no problem here. War Ratings are the same.". One small thing like an insane Match doesn't create a problem. A culmination of issues in a game mode that motivates and drives one subset of Players, and you have something that really only serves the people who are dominating it. Anytime you make any group a priority and ignore the rest, you run the risk of alienating them and that has long-lasting effects. I'm not going to sit and argue that War has become a playground for the top. It's abundantly clear. The difference is, there are few voices that are heard that care.
In 100 words or less, what exactly is your proposal for BG matchmaking?
Dr. Zola
I second this. He loves to poo-poo other suggestions but refuses to give his own.
You mean when people were threatening to create dummy Allies just to take out weaker Alliances and they stepped in? Yes, I'd call that commandeering. I understand you have more knowledge of many aspects to these things, and I don't discredit that. However, I'm also willing to wager they have the feedback and data as well, concerning War. I'm not saying "No one cares.". I'm not that dramatic. I will express that I've seen my share of feedback, as well as Players I've experienced. They used to enjoy the competition. Not just getting easy Rewards. Now the game mode is so advantageous to one small demographic and scarcely worth a month of coordinating and efforts for others. It's no longer worth the stress. Couple that with the fact that they can get ambushed by the occasional Alliance that's 3 times their size in the lower Brackets, and it's entirely discouraging. They come here to point out the issue, and all they hear is "I see no problem here. War Ratings are the same.". One small thing like an insane Match doesn't create a problem. A culmination of issues in a game mode that motivates and drives one subset of Players, and you have something that really only serves the people who are dominating it. Anytime you make any group a priority and ignore the rest, you run the risk of alienating them and that has long-lasting effects. I'm not going to sit and argue that War has become a playground for the top. It's abundantly clear. The difference is, there are few voices that are heard that care.
In 100 words or less, what exactly is your proposal for BG matchmaking?
Dr. Zola
I'm open to any ideas, really. I suggested adjusting the Rewards and leaving the Matches as they are, but that's only one suggestion. I like the suggestion of using something to mitigate the Matches at the beginning stages of the VT, that was shared here. First 5 Tiers was suggested, I'd do more personally, but not steadfast on it. To be honest, I think the "any random" is better in the GC, but I also see the issue presented. Perhaps if there was a larger variation in whatever they're using, that might help as well. I'm open to ideas. I may not agree with all of them, but I'm not closed-minded. What I don't want to see is something that looks like War at the beginning stages, and I've gone into that fairly deeply. Give people a fair chance starting out, and prevent Matchmaking manipulating. Those are my goals. Sorry, but I'm not one for counting my words.
Now the game mode is so advantageous to one small demographic and scarcely worth a month of coordinating and efforts for others. It's no longer worth the stress.
I don't coordinate, and I don't even force people to join every war (although I strongly encourage it). We still make it to Gold 3, which awards a 6* Nexus as part of its rewards. For literally zero stress.
Also, war is now overwhelmingly cheaper for the vast majority of alliances to run. II is still pretty expensive for the top tier of alliances to run, but for almost everyone else it is something between fairly cheap and completely free. Because someone decided to help out all the lower tier alliances by making their revives free, and thus their cost of participation basically zero.
Now the game mode is so advantageous to one small demographic and scarcely worth a month of coordinating and efforts for others. It's no longer worth the stress.
I don't coordinate, and I don't even force people to join every war (although I strongly encourage it). We still make it to Gold 3, which awards a 6* Nexus as part of its rewards. For literally zero stress.
Also, war is now overwhelmingly cheaper for the vast majority of alliances to run. II is still pretty expensive for the top tier of alliances to run, but for almost everyone else it is something between fairly cheap and completely free. Because someone decided to help out all the lower tier alliances by making their revives free, and thus their cost of participation basically zero.
Yes, and that may be your perspective, but that's not what I've seen. Also, you have higher Allies "taking it easy" and coming up against lower Allies. All justified by the Rewards. Those few hundred Shards in the Silver Tiers must be coveted. Zero stress for one Ally isn't zero stress for another, and that still doesn't change the decline in desire to play the game mode that I've seen. I feel we're just going to have to agree to disagree with the state of War because it seems we've had very different experiences.
Now the game mode is so advantageous to one small demographic and scarcely worth a month of coordinating and efforts for others. It's no longer worth the stress.
I don't coordinate, and I don't even force people to join every war (although I strongly encourage it). We still make it to Gold 3, which awards a 6* Nexus as part of its rewards. For literally zero stress.
Also, war is now overwhelmingly cheaper for the vast majority of alliances to run. II is still pretty expensive for the top tier of alliances to run, but for almost everyone else it is something between fairly cheap and completely free. Because someone decided to help out all the lower tier alliances by making their revives free, and thus their cost of participation basically zero.
Yes, and that may be your perspective, but that's not what I've seen. Also, you have higher Allies "taking it easy" and coming up against lower Allies. All justified by the Rewards. Those few hundred Shards in the Silver Tiers must be coveted. Zero stress for one Ally isn't zero stress for another, and that still doesn't change the decline in desire to play the game mode that I've seen. I feel we're just going to have to agree to disagree with the state of War because it seems we've had very different experiences.
Hello, person from 2019 that was recently unfrozen, and welcome to 2023. The Silver bracket of Alliance War now awards between one thousand and five thousand 6* shards. And just this past season Silver 3 required scoring around 1.15 million points, while Silver 1 required a little over 2.7 million. Across 12 wars, that is an average of 95,000 points per war for Silver 3, and 225,000 points for Silver 1. Silver 1 can be achieved by a three group alliance that wins half their wars with a 1.4x multiplier. That would be tier 18. Silver 3 can be achieved by a two group alliance that wins none of their wars in tier 22, which is the lowest tier with a 1x multiplier (and possibly no pulse).
And while overall participation in alliance war had been on a slow decline for a while, participation in Season 39 was somewhat higher than it was back in season 32, according to the ranking data. True, many of those lowest alliances are *barely* participating, but it is the relative data that is important, not the individual participation intensity. Scores are higher across the board at all brackets, implying overall higher participation levels and intensities within individual alliances.
I'm not really sure when this turned into an AW topic, but just to chime in, I got burnt out in AW years ago and have since been in a semi-retired alliance of fairly big accounts (alliance rating over 90 million) and we always do optional 1 BG AW.
We do zero organization, zero diversity, zero care about deaths and frankly rarely even fill up an entire one BG. Despite not caring at all we usually range between silver 1 and silver 2 with occasional gold visits, all with next to zero effort.
Yes. 1000-2500 Shards for a month of coordinating for an Alliance with a range from Paragon to UC. I'm speaking from experience, and if you suck the desire to play at all from Players, that is a much larger issue than what the data shows and the upper crust is comfortable with. It's an issue, regardless of whether you feel it's a valid one. Which is why I said we're better off disagreeing. You're convinced the system is optimal and effective. I have a different experience on the other end of it.
Unless you consider it reasonable for 50M+ Allies to hang out in Tiers 10-12, just to relieve some stress, while others are doing the best they can with what they have. Personally I call that a self-serving system.
Yes. 1000-2500 Shards for a month of coordinating for an Alliance with a range from Paragon to UC. I'm speaking from experience, and if you suck the desire to play at all from Players, that is a much larger issue than what the data shows and the upper crust is comfortable with. It's an issue, regardless of whether you feel it's a valid one. Which is why I said we're better off disagreeing. You're convinced the system is optimal and effective. I have a different experience on the other end of it.
The main reason why I, and many others lost interest in BG long ago isn't because of how it's setup, it's because the rewards at high tiers just aren't worth the effort for many of us. Additionally, I completed in high tier AW for years and it wasn't fun, in fact it was miserable between the preparation, diversity, nodes, and public shamming or boot threats to those to get KO. It just wasnt fun to the point of the rewards level.
The main reason why BG is launching successfully (just like AW launched successfully) is because the rewards to effort is so far out of whack to everything else in the game.
I think it's safe to assume Kabam was worried about not enough interest or play or monetization in BG so they made sure to get everyone's attention by easily outdoing rewards to effort than all other game modes.
I guarantee you if AW got a similar reward boost, interest would shoot way up again. Vice versa if Kabam decided BG rewards for roo high for game meta and nerfed the rewards, decline of interest would be astronomical.
Yes. 1000-2500 Shards for a month of coordinating for an Alliance with a range from Paragon to UC. I'm speaking from experience, and if you suck the desire to play at all from Players, that is a much larger issue than what the data shows and the upper crust is comfortable with. It's an issue, regardless of whether you feel it's a valid one. Which is why I said we're better off disagreeing. You're convinced the system is optimal and effective. I have a different experience on the other end of it.
The main reason why I, and many others lost interest in BG long ago isn't because of how it's setup, it's because the rewards at high tiers just aren't worth the effort for many of us. Additionally, I completed in high tier AW for years and it wasn't fun, in fact it was miserable between the preparation, diversity, nodes, and public shamming or boot threats to those to get KO. It just wasnt fun to the point of the rewards level.
The main reason why BG is launching successfully (just like AW launched successfully) is because the rewards to effort is so far out of whack to everything else in the game.
I think it's safe to assume Kabam was worried about not enough interest or play or monetization in BG so they made sure to get everyone's attention by easily outdoing rewards to effort than all other game modes.
I guarantee you if AW got a similar reward boost, interest would shoot way up again. Vice versa if Kabam decided BG rewards for roo high for game meta and nerfed the rewards, decline of interest would be astronomical.
That's not the point. My point is, the system is affected overall. In your 90M Ally, what of the Players that have to come up against you? One Ally's break is another Ally's desire to not play at all.
Yes. 1000-2500 Shards for a month of coordinating for an Alliance with a range from Paragon to UC. I'm speaking from experience, and if you suck the desire to play at all from Players, that is a much larger issue than what the data shows and the upper crust is comfortable with. It's an issue, regardless of whether you feel it's a valid one. Which is why I said we're better off disagreeing. You're convinced the system is optimal and effective. I have a different experience on the other end of it.
The main reason why I, and many others lost interest in BG long ago isn't because of how it's setup, it's because the rewards at high tiers just aren't worth the effort for many of us. Additionally, I completed in high tier AW for years and it wasn't fun, in fact it was miserable between the preparation, diversity, nodes, and public shamming or boot threats to those to get KO. It just wasnt fun to the point of the rewards level.
The main reason why BG is launching successfully (just like AW launched successfully) is because the rewards to effort is so far out of whack to everything else in the game.
I think it's safe to assume Kabam was worried about not enough interest or play or monetization in BG so they made sure to get everyone's attention by easily outdoing rewards to effort than all other game modes.
I guarantee you if AW got a similar reward boost, interest would shoot way up again. Vice versa if Kabam decided BG rewards for roo high for game meta and nerfed the rewards, decline of interest would be astronomical.
That's not the point. My point is, the system is affected overall. In your 90M Ally, what of the Players that have to come up against you? One Ally's break is another Ally's desire to not play at all.
Well no one who takes AW too serious only runs 1 BG. We do get massive variations of alliances we go against though. I honestly pay minimal attention but have seen us go against alliances as low as 20ish million rating and has high as 100ish million rating. But I think the average we face tends to be around 50-60 million.
And just for the record, we lose to much smaller alliances all the time. Not because we aren't good, but because we just don't care as stressing ourselves out over war isnt worth the extra rewards tradeoff. We make zero effort in AW, no assigned lanes, no defender checks, rarely have anyone fix defender placements, usually run 7 or 8 in the one BG, no item usage rules, etc, just a crazy, we don't care free for all
Yes. 1000-2500 Shards for a month of coordinating for an Alliance with a range from Paragon to UC. I'm speaking from experience, and if you suck the desire to play at all from Players, that is a much larger issue than what the data shows and the upper crust is comfortable with. It's an issue, regardless of whether you feel it's a valid one. Which is why I said we're better off disagreeing. You're convinced the system is optimal and effective. I have a different experience on the other end of it.
The main reason why I, and many others lost interest in BG long ago isn't because of how it's setup, it's because the rewards at high tiers just aren't worth the effort for many of us. Additionally, I completed in high tier AW for years and it wasn't fun, in fact it was miserable between the preparation, diversity, nodes, and public shamming or boot threats to those to get KO. It just wasnt fun to the point of the rewards level.
The main reason why BG is launching successfully (just like AW launched successfully) is because the rewards to effort is so far out of whack to everything else in the game.
I think it's safe to assume Kabam was worried about not enough interest or play or monetization in BG so they made sure to get everyone's attention by easily outdoing rewards to effort than all other game modes.
I guarantee you if AW got a similar reward boost, interest would shoot way up again. Vice versa if Kabam decided BG rewards for roo high for game meta and nerfed the rewards, decline of interest would be astronomical.
That's not the point. My point is, the system is affected overall. In your 90M Ally, what of the Players that have to come up against you? One Ally's break is another Ally's desire to not play at all.
Well no one who takes AW too serious only runs 1 BG. We do get massive variations of alliances we go against though. I honestly pay minimal attention but have seen us go against alliances as low as 20ish million rating and has high as 100ish million rating. But I think the average we face tends to be around 50-60 million.
And just for the record, we lose to much smaller alliances all the time. Not because we aren't good, but because we just don't care as stressing ourselves out over war isnt worth the extra rewards tradeoff. We make zero effort in AW, no assigned lanes, no defender checks, rarely have anyone fix defender placements, usually run 7 or 8 in the one BG, no item usage rules, etc, just a crazy, we don't care free for all
The Alliances that can't successfully fill 2 BGs run one.
I'll give you credit for staying consistent in at least one area, which is, you don't want lower accounts to have to fight higher accounts, and honestly, that's fine, as long as they bracket those participation rewards accordingly.
That needs to VT and GC milestones, 28-day solo objectives, and frankly, in the interest of the fairness you seek, 28-day alliance quest objectives would need to be looked at too (cause under the current system, an alliance full of UC will likely win more matches than an alliance full of Paragons).
I fear for you though when all the UCs, Cavs, and Thronebreakers effected break out their pitch forks.
Personally, I still think the best approach is to go back to the previous match making system, and put a floor on the minimum level of champs you can bring based on your hero rating.
>4 million, you can't bring anything but 6*. 3-3.999 million, 5* 4/55 and up. So forth and so on.
The removes the sandbagging aspect that everyone was so upset about in season 3, and gets back to everyone competing against everyone else for the same rewards.
Yes. 1000-2500 Shards for a month of coordinating for an Alliance with a range from Paragon to UC. I'm speaking from experience, and if you suck the desire to play at all from Players, that is a much larger issue than what the data shows and the upper crust is comfortable with. It's an issue, regardless of whether you feel it's a valid one. Which is why I said we're better off disagreeing. You're convinced the system is optimal and effective. I have a different experience on the other end of it.
I never said it was optimal. I simply stated your assertions about it are provably false.
So because the last Season shows more participation, that negates my statement that some people have lost the desire to play it? By comparison that proves what I've said.
You mean when people were threatening to create dummy Allies just to take out weaker Alliances and they stepped in? Yes, I'd call that commandeering. I understand you have more knowledge of many aspects to these things, and I don't discredit that. However, I'm also willing to wager they have the feedback and data as well, concerning War. I'm not saying "No one cares.". I'm not that dramatic. I will express that I've seen my share of feedback, as well as Players I've experienced. They used to enjoy the competition. Not just getting easy Rewards. Now the game mode is so advantageous to one small demographic and scarcely worth a month of coordinating and efforts for others. It's no longer worth the stress. Couple that with the fact that they can get ambushed by the occasional Alliance that's 3 times their size in the lower Brackets, and it's entirely discouraging. They come here to point out the issue, and all they hear is "I see no problem here. War Ratings are the same.". One small thing like an insane Match doesn't create a problem. A culmination of issues in a game mode that motivates and drives one subset of Players, and you have something that really only serves the people who are dominating it. Anytime you make any group a priority and ignore the rest, you run the risk of alienating them and that has long-lasting effects. I'm not going to sit and argue that War has become a playground for the top. It's abundantly clear. The difference is, there are few voices that are heard that care.
In 100 words or less, what exactly is your proposal for BG matchmaking?
Dr. Zola
I'm open to any ideas, really. I suggested adjusting the Rewards and leaving the Matches as they are, but that's only one suggestion. I like the suggestion of using something to mitigate the Matches at the beginning stages of the VT, that was shared here. First 5 Tiers was suggested, I'd do more personally, but not steadfast on it. To be honest, I think the "any random" is better in the GC, but I also see the issue presented. Perhaps if there was a larger variation in whatever they're using, that might help as well. I'm open to ideas. I may not agree with all of them, but I'm not closed-minded. What I don't want to see is something that looks like War at the beginning stages, and I've gone into that fairly deeply. Give people a fair chance starting out, and prevent Matchmaking manipulating. Those are my goals. Sorry, but I'm not one for counting my words.
100 words. Not 100 posts. If you can’t make your point succinctly, why should anyone listen?
Comments
This takes time, and exposure to the ideas. It isn't for nothing for people to be exposed to the problem and the perspective, and see how non-marginal and widespread the thought process is or is becoming.
Alliance war changed when enough players started saying "yeah, why is it like that, that doesn't make sense." When enough of that reaches the developers, then *they* start asking, does it actually make sense. And when the right dev decides it doesn't make sense, it gets changed.
Change will happen.
As it happened at AW.
Anything that is unfair is changing eventually.
It’s a matter of time.
But the question is how long it will take?
Do we have to wait again multiple seasons like AW, for Kabam to realise the obvious.
Prestige matchmaking is broken, it always was and always will be. *Except the case, rewards are tiered and proportional to Prestige also, which doesn’t happen in this occasion*
That’s the only way it can be fair.
It doesn’t takes to be a genius to understand it.
And makes someone wonder how Kabam can still ignore that.
They can’t claim we don’t know.
Same happened to AW couple of years ago.
They know what’s happening.
The problem though will be when more people, realise what’s happening.
Because, many are still ignoring how matchmaking works.
Do I understand what people are saying? Yes. I get that people are upset because lower Players are advancing to the GC faster, and how they're indicating that's a broken system. That doesn't mean there's not other sides to this situation that aren't being addressed. I don't want either side earning Rewards for which they haven't earned. Not just one. I don't want a system that is advantageous to anyone at the expense of fairness for the other. I can assure you if the other side wasn't being heard, I would be a voice for that as well.
System or not, if I'm not winning my Matches, that isn't entirely the fault of the system. I'm also responsible for my own losses.
I'm sorry, but I don't justify Rewards for a system that is unreasonable for anyone. Top or bottom. What I don't want to happen is what happened with War. I don't care who agrees that's a fair system. It's not a fair system to everyone. I may be eutopian in my views, but I'm still holding on for something that is fair for all. Not one side because Shards and stuffs.
People aren't ignoring your "points", your argument that weaker rosters should get better rewards than those stronger who they don't have to face is just an extremely poor argument and impossible to justify.
If someone wants to argue that DC would be a better IP for the game than Marvel, that is their right but that would be a foolhardy position to take on these forums for this game. There's simply nowhere to go with that position. Similarly, if you want to argue that "fairness" in the game is about the one on one matches and not about the competition as a whole, that is also your right but that runs so counter to what most people believe to be fair that that would also be a position with no future.
Portraying your position as fighting for the little guy is not a strong position in the long run, because in the long run the little guy will discover that either their matches get harder or their rewards get smaller, and when confronted with that choice most will choose the first option. With the first option there's hope. With the second, there's no hope. Claiming to be supporting players who will reject that support as unhelpful would eventually ring hollow.
That's neither here nor there. I've also only argued one suggestion for this situation. I've indicated there are a number of workable solutions, and there have been some suggestions made.
I honestly have no idea what you mean by "commandeered by the people at the top" when referring to ELO matching. This is so antithetical to not only my own sense of competitive fairness, but *any* definition of fairness I've ever heard of, that I don't believe there's a rational response.
Actually, I have heard of such a definition. When people construct strawmen to try to characterize inclusive children's programs as being "participation trophies" they describe what you're describing as fair competition, specifically to belittle the entire idea. In other words, no human I know believe this. But there are people who use this idea to make other people look bad. That's how far removed from any notion of competitive fairness this sounds.
I understand you have more knowledge of many aspects to these things, and I don't discredit that. However, I'm also willing to wager they have the feedback and data as well, concerning War. I'm not saying "No one cares.". I'm not that dramatic. I will express that I've seen my share of feedback, as well as Players I've experienced. They used to enjoy the competition. Not just getting easy Rewards.
Now the game mode is so advantageous to one small demographic and scarcely worth a month of coordinating and efforts for others. It's no longer worth the stress. Couple that with the fact that they can get ambushed by the occasional Alliance that's 3 times their size in the lower Brackets, and it's entirely discouraging. They come here to point out the issue, and all they hear is "I see no problem here. War Ratings are the same.".
One small thing like an insane Match doesn't create a problem. A culmination of issues in a game mode that motivates and drives one subset of Players, and you have something that really only serves the people who are dominating it.
Anytime you make any group a priority and ignore the rest, you run the risk of alienating them and that has long-lasting effects. I'm not going to sit and argue that War has become a playground for the top. It's abundantly clear. The difference is, there are few voices that are heard that care.
Dr. Zola
To be honest, I think the "any random" is better in the GC, but I also see the issue presented. Perhaps if there was a larger variation in whatever they're using, that might help as well.
I'm open to ideas. I may not agree with all of them, but I'm not closed-minded. What I don't want to see is something that looks like War at the beginning stages, and I've gone into that fairly deeply. Give people a fair chance starting out, and prevent Matchmaking manipulating. Those are my goals.
Sorry, but I'm not one for counting my words.
Also, war is now overwhelmingly cheaper for the vast majority of alliances to run. II is still pretty expensive for the top tier of alliances to run, but for almost everyone else it is something between fairly cheap and completely free. Because someone decided to help out all the lower tier alliances by making their revives free, and thus their cost of participation basically zero.
Zero stress for one Ally isn't zero stress for another, and that still doesn't change the decline in desire to play the game mode that I've seen. I feel we're just going to have to agree to disagree with the state of War because it seems we've had very different experiences.
And while overall participation in alliance war had been on a slow decline for a while, participation in Season 39 was somewhat higher than it was back in season 32, according to the ranking data. True, many of those lowest alliances are *barely* participating, but it is the relative data that is important, not the individual participation intensity. Scores are higher across the board at all brackets, implying overall higher participation levels and intensities within individual alliances.
We do zero organization, zero diversity, zero care about deaths and frankly rarely even fill up an entire one BG. Despite not caring at all we usually range between silver 1 and silver 2 with occasional gold visits, all with next to zero effort.
I'm speaking from experience, and if you suck the desire to play at all from Players, that is a much larger issue than what the data shows and the upper crust is comfortable with. It's an issue, regardless of whether you feel it's a valid one. Which is why I said we're better off disagreeing. You're convinced the system is optimal and effective. I have a different experience on the other end of it.
The main reason why BG is launching successfully (just like AW launched successfully) is because the rewards to effort is so far out of whack to everything else in the game.
I think it's safe to assume Kabam was worried about not enough interest or play or monetization in BG so they made sure to get everyone's attention by easily outdoing rewards to effort than all other game modes.
I guarantee you if AW got a similar reward boost, interest would shoot way up again. Vice versa if Kabam decided BG rewards for roo high for game meta and nerfed the rewards, decline of interest would be astronomical.
And just for the record, we lose to much smaller alliances all the time. Not because we aren't good, but because we just don't care as stressing ourselves out over war isnt worth the extra rewards tradeoff. We make zero effort in AW, no assigned lanes, no defender checks, rarely have anyone fix defender placements, usually run 7 or 8 in the one BG, no item usage rules, etc, just a crazy, we don't care free for all
That needs to VT and GC milestones, 28-day solo objectives, and frankly, in the interest of the fairness you seek, 28-day alliance quest objectives would need to be looked at too (cause under the current system, an alliance full of UC will likely win more matches than an alliance full of Paragons).
I fear for you though when all the UCs, Cavs, and Thronebreakers effected break out their pitch forks.
Personally, I still think the best approach is to go back to the previous match making system, and put a floor on the minimum level of champs you can bring based on your hero rating.
>4 million, you can't bring anything but 6*.
3-3.999 million, 5* 4/55 and up.
So forth and so on.
The removes the sandbagging aspect that everyone was so upset about in season 3, and gets back to everyone competing against everyone else for the same rewards.
Dr. Zola