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.
Silver 3. One measly BG. Literally zero coordination and often no more than 5-6 people placing 25-30 defenders, sometimes without a boss. Hope none of them are reading this, but often some of them are so bad they die before Boss Island. Diversity be damned.
With the slightest additional effort, we have been Silver 1/2. And by slightest I mean the very, very slightest. One additional member who grows interested might be all it takes.
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?
Dr. Zola
I believe that was one Post, with less than 100 words. You asked for a response, and I gave one.
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?
Dr. Zola
I believe that was one Post, with less than 100 words. You asked for a response, and I gave one.
An overstatement on my part: only 52 individual posts in this thread alone.
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?
Dr. Zola
I believe that was one Post, with less than 100 words. You asked for a response, and I gave one.
An overstatement on my part: only 52 individual posts in this thread alone.
Dr. Zola
That wasn't the question. You asked about my suggestions, I responded. I'm not here to discuss my participation in the Forum. If you would like to discuss the point I made about my concerns for people losing interest in the game mode the same way they have in War, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm not engaging in a conversation about how many times I've commented. I comment because I'm passionate about the issue. That's about it.
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?
Dr. Zola
I believe that was one Post, with less than 100 words. You asked for a response, and I gave one.
An overstatement on my part: only 52 individual posts in this thread alone.
Dr. Zola
That wasn't the question. You asked about my suggestions, I responded. I'm not here to discuss my participation in the Forum. If you would like to discuss the point I made about my concerns for people losing interest in the game mode the same way they have in War, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm not engaging in a conversation about how many times I've commented. I comment because I'm passionate about the issue. That's about it.
Ok. Weaker rosters shouldn’t be able to make it to GC solely by beating weaker rosters. That’s my position.
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?
Dr. Zola
I believe that was one Post, with less than 100 words. You asked for a response, and I gave one.
An overstatement on my part: only 52 individual posts in this thread alone.
Dr. Zola
That wasn't the question. You asked about my suggestions, I responded. I'm not here to discuss my participation in the Forum. If you would like to discuss the point I made about my concerns for people losing interest in the game mode the same way they have in War, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm not engaging in a conversation about how many times I've commented. I comment because I'm passionate about the issue. That's about it.
Ok. Weaker rosters shouldn’t be able to make it to GC solely by beating weaker rosters. That’s my position.
Dr. Zola
You're free to that opinion. I've outlined my concerns. There, now we can both express our thoughts without inhibiting each other.
Why unfair matchmaking would not be changed right away? Because current system force you to spend victory shields. And if you are more expierience player you spend more. I strongly believe that first most of paragon players must lost interest in mode to force Kabam to change it. So lets do it. Let cav and TB players have better rewards. Ofc they are worse players then paragons ,ofc less expierience in game and game knowledge but they are playing what the system gave to them. And system is quite smart. If In GC matchmaking was the same then some cav 1mil player will be on top of the liderboard, best in the world. Than it would be obvious that system is wrong and unfair. And right now only middle class (middle paragons) is in pain.
Why unfair matchmaking would not be changed right away? Because current system force you to spend victory shields. And if you are more expierience player you spend more. I strongly believe that first most of paragon players must lost interest in mode to force Kabam to change it. So lets do it. Let cav and TB players have better rewards. Ofc they are worse players then paragons ,ofc less expierience in game and game knowledge but they are playing what the system gave to them. And system is quite smart. If In GC matchmaking was the same then some cav 1mil player will be on top of the liderboard, best in the world. Than it would be obvious that system is wrong and unfair. And right now only middle class (middle paragons) is in pain.
Yet another season is starting in 4 days, and still not any announcement of VT matchmaking change. At least limit Prestige matchmaking to the first 4-5 VT tiers. Do we have to wait again several seasons, like happened at AW, for Prestige matchmaking to get removed? A responsible answer from Kabam would be appreciated. Because the already given “BG matchmaking is constantly being monitored and evaluated” isn’t changing the fact, that another BG season will start with an unfair matchmaking system. Monitor and evaluate what? Prestige matchmaking? Do the company still ignores the outcomes of that, after the AW experience? Do we need more data and higher exposure to that, to realise the obvious? It’s unfair and destroys any fundamental meaning of competition.
Why unfair matchmaking would not be changed right away? Because current system force you to spend victory shields. And if you are more expierience player you spend more. I strongly believe that first most of paragon players must lost interest in mode to force Kabam to change it. So lets do it. Let cav and TB players have better rewards. Ofc they are worse players then paragons ,ofc less expierience in game and game knowledge but they are playing what the system gave to them. And system is quite smart. If In GC matchmaking was the same then some cav 1mil player will be on top of the liderboard, best in the world. Than it would be obvious that system is wrong and unfair. And right now only middle class (middle paragons) is in pain.
Yet another season is starting in 4 days, and still not any announcement of VT matchmaking change. At least limit Prestige matchmaking to the first 4-5 VT tiers. Do we have to wait again several seasons, like happened at AW, for Prestige matchmaking to get removed? A responsible answer from Kabam would be appreciated. Because the already given “BG matchmaking is constantly being monitored and evaluated” isn’t changing the fact, that another BG season will start with an unfair matchmaking system. Monitor and evaluate what? Prestige matchmaking? Do the company still ignores the outcomes of that, after the AW experience? Do we need more data and higher exposure to that, to realise the obvious? It’s unfair and destroys any fundamental meaning of competition.
They're not likely going to comment on any method they're using, outside of what they've already said.
Why unfair matchmaking would not be changed right away? Because current system force you to spend victory shields. And if you are more expierience player you spend more. I strongly believe that first most of paragon players must lost interest in mode to force Kabam to change it. So lets do it. Let cav and TB players have better rewards. Ofc they are worse players then paragons ,ofc less expierience in game and game knowledge but they are playing what the system gave to them. And system is quite smart. If In GC matchmaking was the same then some cav 1mil player will be on top of the liderboard, best in the world. Than it would be obvious that system is wrong and unfair. And right now only middle class (middle paragons) is in pain.
Yet another season is starting in 4 days, and still not any announcement of VT matchmaking change. At least limit Prestige matchmaking to the first 4-5 VT tiers. Do we have to wait again several seasons, like happened at AW, for Prestige matchmaking to get removed? A responsible answer from Kabam would be appreciated. Because the already given “BG matchmaking is constantly being monitored and evaluated” isn’t changing the fact, that another BG season will start with an unfair matchmaking system. Monitor and evaluate what? Prestige matchmaking? Do the company still ignores the outcomes of that, after the AW experience? Do we need more data and higher exposure to that, to realise the obvious? It’s unfair and destroys any fundamental meaning of competition.
Despite how much concern on matchmaking on various threads and all the views and responses from so many, the best we were able to get from a mod was a ridiculously vague response on the continue to monitor matchmaking.
Yes, they're not going to talk about methods. Regardless of whether we can deduce what they're using or not, that's the response they will give. That doesn't mean they're not reading.
Yes, they're not going to talk about methods. Regardless of whether we can deduce what they're using or not, that's the response they will give. That doesn't mean they're not reading.
I actually agree with you on this one, for the most part. My only hangup is that when weaker rosters were flooding forums with complaints on getting matched with much stronger rosters, then sandbagging issues, the the pause and time out junk, each of these times the moderators assured the community they were working on taking action.
Some of those took a while, such as sandbagging and some still not resolved like pause and time out. But the moderators have assured that it's being addressed and worked to be corrected.
No one has yet to tell us that they are even looking into issues on this unfair prestige matchmaking issue. The closest to that, which was ever dozens of tags and me hunting mods down in other posts they were responding to, was when Jax said something like Kabam is continually monitoring BG matchmaking. Never once did he or any mod directly acknowledge the issue of the unfair track progress or how this discourages many from progressing their rosters.
It is also frustrating since their fix to the many sandbagging complaints played a massive role in causing this issue that now rewards players.foe not progressing rosters and gives lower rosters far smoother and easier track to getting better rewards than those with far stronger accounts.
I am also positive that there aren't more complaints from higher rosters because they just don't know yet. Many haven't figured it out and as they do, and as low to mid Paragon find out that 5k to 8k prestige rosters are getting better rewards than them, I can only imagine how upset they are going to be.
Jax's vague response reads to me as "We know this isn't great, but we don't have a clue how to fix it without infuriating the low level accounts again."
The reality of that statement is likely something more like "We evaluate monetization of game modes routinely."
And therein lies the problem. Many of those with the high end rosters are spenders. The spenders that care about chasing those rewards will get victory shields, so while the path to GC is painful, the vast majority of those accounts aren't complaining, because they're buying their way into GC.
From the lower account perspective, the folks who probably aren't spending a lot on the game, their outrage is heard much faster, cause when they can't win consistently, and don't want to spend on shields, the only remaining option is to complain on the forums.
Simply put, there are far more UCs, Cavs, and TBs to complain cause they want to be FtP, but still get what spenders get.
The expression "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" comes to mind, and right now, the upper end being negatively effected isn't shouting loud enough, cause they're spending. And if people are spending, Kabam is happy.
This matchmaking system isn't likely to change anytime soon,
I'm sure the combined number of UCs, Cavs, and TBs is greater than the number of Paragons.
If this thread is any indication, there's only a handful of Paragons complaining about the current system, which pales in comparison to the total number of Paragons.
On the flip side, I don't think I've seen any of the other titles complaining about the match making in season 4. In fact, there's really only been one person from those titles commenting on it, and that's you, defending it.
So the only real assumptions are behind why Kabam has been completely silent on the topic, and the reason such a small percentage of the top end are complaining. So yes, while I acknowledge they are assumptions, I would argue they're pretty reasonable assumptions.
It's not an "us vs. them" situation. I can't speak for certain, but I'm quite sure they share somewhat the same feelings I do. They want a fair competition for everyone playing. The variable is getting to a point where it's AS fair as possible, while mitigating the damage. They're not favoring higher Players over lower ones. They're doing what they can to keep the competition in the spirit of fair play and sportsmanlike behavior. That's where the alteration was born. People were manipulating the Matchmaking. To be frank, that's when competitiveness becomes obsessive in my opinion. When people are so focused on gaining advantages for Rewards, they do things that can ruin it for others. Then here we are.
I don’t think we should pretend like anyone is asking for the literal formula for matchmaking here. That’s absurd and unrealistic to expect.
But neither do I think it’s silly to expect more than a vague acknowledgment that there may be disadvantages to the current matchmaking process that are being examined. We really haven’t gotten that.
If the team is fine with a process that allows relatively comparable rosters to compete mainly against each other without adjusting rewards on a relative basis, they should just say that. Each game mode has its own dynamics, and most are probably better suited for larger, more developed rosters. Perhaps the current plan is to allow BGs to be a way to help smaller rosters more on a relative basis—who knows?
Just wait till the ones who changed the matchmaking by complaining reach a new tier and start getting deathmatches 100% of the time. They know that if they flood the forums with complaints KABAM will change for them.
Just wait till the ones who changed the matchmaking by complaining reach a new tier and start getting deathmatches 100% of the time. They know that if they flood the forums with complaints KABAM will change for them.
I mean there is a thread now that matchmaking should be based on prestige even in GC as it’s not fair that smaller accounts are facing stacked accounts in GC.
Just wait till the ones who changed the matchmaking by complaining reach a new tier and start getting deathmatches 100% of the time. They know that if they flood the forums with complaints KABAM will change for them.
I mean there is a thread now that matchmaking should be based on prestige even in GC as it’s not fair that smaller accounts are facing stacked accounts in GC.
That Account was made on January 21st. Not making any accusations, but there's a good chance it's made to turn some wheels.
Comments
With the slightest additional effort, we have been Silver 1/2. And by slightest I mean the very, very slightest. One additional member who grows interested might be all it takes.
Dr. Zola
Dr. Zola
Dr. Zola
So lets do it. Let cav and TB players have better rewards. Ofc they are worse players then paragons ,ofc less expierience in game and game knowledge but they are playing what the system gave to them. And system is quite smart. If In GC matchmaking was the same then some cav 1mil player will be on top of the liderboard, best in the world. Than it would be obvious that system is wrong and unfair. And right now only middle class (middle paragons) is in pain.
At least limit Prestige matchmaking to the first 4-5 VT tiers.
Do we have to wait again several seasons, like happened at AW, for Prestige matchmaking to get removed?
A responsible answer from Kabam would be appreciated.
Because the already given “BG matchmaking is constantly being monitored and evaluated” isn’t changing the fact, that another BG season will start with an unfair matchmaking system.
Monitor and evaluate what? Prestige matchmaking?
Do the company still ignores the outcomes of that, after the AW experience?
Do we need more data and higher exposure to that, to realise the obvious?
It’s unfair and destroys any fundamental meaning of competition.
Some of those took a while, such as sandbagging and some still not resolved like pause and time out. But the moderators have assured that it's being addressed and worked to be corrected.
No one has yet to tell us that they are even looking into issues on this unfair prestige matchmaking issue. The closest to that, which was ever dozens of tags and me hunting mods down in other posts they were responding to, was when Jax said something like Kabam is continually monitoring BG matchmaking. Never once did he or any mod directly acknowledge the issue of the unfair track progress or how this discourages many from progressing their rosters.
It is also frustrating since their fix to the many sandbagging complaints played a massive role in causing this issue that now rewards players.foe not progressing rosters and gives lower rosters far smoother and easier track to getting better rewards than those with far stronger accounts.
I am also positive that there aren't more complaints from higher rosters because they just don't know yet. Many haven't figured it out and as they do, and as low to mid Paragon find out that 5k to 8k prestige rosters are getting better rewards than them, I can only imagine how upset they are going to be.
The reality of that statement is likely something more like "We evaluate monetization of game modes routinely."
And therein lies the problem. Many of those with the high end rosters are spenders. The spenders that care about chasing those rewards will get victory shields, so while the path to GC is painful, the vast majority of those accounts aren't complaining, because they're buying their way into GC.
From the lower account perspective, the folks who probably aren't spending a lot on the game, their outrage is heard much faster, cause when they can't win consistently, and don't want to spend on shields, the only remaining option is to complain on the forums.
Simply put, there are far more UCs, Cavs, and TBs to complain cause they want to be FtP, but still get what spenders get.
The expression "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" comes to mind, and right now, the upper end being negatively effected isn't shouting loud enough, cause they're spending. And if people are spending, Kabam is happy.
This matchmaking system isn't likely to change anytime soon,
I'm sure the combined number of UCs, Cavs, and TBs is greater than the number of Paragons.
If this thread is any indication, there's only a handful of Paragons complaining about the current system, which pales in comparison to the total number of Paragons.
On the flip side, I don't think I've seen any of the other titles complaining about the match making in season 4. In fact, there's really only been one person from those titles commenting on it, and that's you, defending it.
So the only real assumptions are behind why Kabam has been completely silent on the topic, and the reason such a small percentage of the top end are complaining. So yes, while I acknowledge they are assumptions, I would argue they're pretty reasonable assumptions.
To be frank, that's when competitiveness becomes obsessive in my opinion. When people are so focused on gaining advantages for Rewards, they do things that can ruin it for others. Then here we are.
But neither do I think it’s silly to expect more than a vague acknowledgment that there may be disadvantages to the current matchmaking process that are being examined. We really haven’t gotten that.
If the team is fine with a process that allows relatively comparable rosters to compete mainly against each other without adjusting rewards on a relative basis, they should just say that. Each game mode has its own dynamics, and most are probably better suited for larger, more developed rosters. Perhaps the current plan is to allow BGs to be a way to help smaller rosters more on a relative basis—who knows?
Not the route I would take, but I what do I know?
Dr. Zola