Well, since people are insistent on manipulation, this is where we're at. I'm not saying I was particularly endorsing using Prestige. That didn't fear well with War. However, this isn't the same game mode, so there's differences. Any way you look at it, they're pretty much forced to do something when people decide to take advantage of the system.
I wanted to see how Paragons feel about current matchmaking in Bgs so figured I'd ask this question to all of you.
Quick background, I'm end game player, have 100% all content (spend a little but very far from a whale) and before the "git gud" comments flood in, be advised that I have hundreds of gameplay vids on my channel showing I'm fine on the "git gud" category.
Last few seasons, with minimal effort I was out of victory track and in gladiator circuit within first week of BG season. Ive finished decently high top 1000 players in GC each season (without much effort) of BG.
This season, I've put in similar amount of effort but am still in gold. I know with more effort that will change soon and will change as the season goes on, but I can't help but feel this seems a bit unfair based on recent matchmaking changes.
Im fairly positive I'm not the only paragon or high prestige player in this situation and can't help but get annoyed when I see far weaker players who would get slaughtered against me already in GC because the matchmaking system matches weak players against weak players while strong players have to try and win several in a row against end gamers and massive whales in every tier starting in bronze.
This is the only game mode that I'm aware of that actually rewards players for having weaker accounts, avoiding rankups and avoiding prestige. It really doesn't make sense to me. It makes less sense since Kabam tries to do a very similar thing in AW seasons a couple years ago and it was a massive failure and resulted in far weaker alliances getting same or better rewards than much stronger alliances.
We are all competing for same rewards in BG (yes, stores have different prices but we competing for exact same rewards, to include exact same amount of battleground tokens) so why is it setup this way.
I know the lower players have to love this so I'm sure plenty of troll comments coming, but I'm curious to see how others in similar situations feel.
Personally, I feel like it's counterproductive on Kabams end doing it this way.
Am cruising through easily on my main(paragon) and currently on a 12 match win streak, soon will be in GC. But on my alt(thronebreaker) having only 4 r3s ..rest r2s and 5 stars are getting matched with triple my account size full of r3s and r4s who trash me like anything...so your experience is opposite of mine..lol
Something doesn’t feel right! On my 2nd account i always get matched up with accounts smaller than me, and all fairly easy wins. But on my main account i get matched up with accounts 2X the size of mine.
I'm an early Paragon player, with 3 6R4s and another 49 6R3s. Almost 2,8 mil. account and 14k Prestige. I have explored 8.1 100%, I am 5 paths (against 7.4.6 Kang) away from 100% Act 7, all Variants 100% (except V1).
I'm constantly facing other Paragon accounts with full armies of 6R4s. It is almost irrelevant whom I ban, since they always have a ton of other incredible options. I struggle to make a win and I'm stuck in Bronze III. Yes, I do know that there is some strategy involved in choosing your defenders, based on their deck etc.
I have decided not to stress about it, though. I play my 3 matches every 2 days, win one or two, buy some 6* shards / sig stones from the BG store and call it a day.
If Kabam expect me to accept a pay-to-play game mode, they have another thing coming.
I'm an end game paragon 2.9m rating and 16.3k prestige with over 15 r4s and dozens of r3s. I'm usually facing someone with a equal roster or less then mine. Very few times have I faced someone with a bigger roster. Could be because I have some 5* in my deck as just in case counters so it brings me down.
I’m still slogging through Gold as well. I’ve made some roster upgrades, and I’m determined not to make any solely for BGs. Most of my opponents are comparable to my roster or 15-20% *better* or larger.
The past week has been rotten for me in BGs. It’s pretty much one up, one back—or for the past two days, just back and back again.
Toss out the few matches replete with block failure where I got spontaneously clocked (talking about you, Domino) and I’ve had several 2-1 losses where I just got outdrafted or outfoxed by a bit.
At least 4 matches I’ve celebrated because I had no Valk, Galan, AA or Hulkling ban but went on to have none or just one of those champs show up in my draft. I can’t recall the last time I saw a sandbagger, and I’ve got ally mates who have cruised to Diamond/Uru with some of the easiest matches you can imagine.
It’s a weird setup. I’ve got R4 materials for four more champs, but I refuse to let BGs dictate that and I’d rather not jack my prestige higher to get tougher BG matches, at least not until I can escape Gold and Platinum.
Bright side: Combination of this BG effect with the tedium of the new TB EQ has done wonders for my time away from MCoC.
Paragon, 15k prestige and also only get matched against mammoth accounts, from bronze onwards; my fault for having 3 sig 200 6*.... Odd way for kabam to incentivise progression; rank up your champs and get penalized in the highest rewards game mode, with the best rank up rewards... Where to progress, it is beneficial to NOT rank up champions.
The alternative is the methodology used in alliance war. And the path to that alternative is the same one that got us to the one we use in alliance war. Kabam thinks prestige matching is fair. It isn't. But it takes a while for people to realize in what way it is unfair. Then players complain about it for about a year. Then when players get enough experience and data, they start showing the extreme corner cases that arise when you do roster/prestige matching. Eventually a majority of players coalesce on the notion that it is anti-competitive, especially after two or three rounds of rewards upgrades and people start seeing Conquerors with better rewards than Paragons. Then Kabam will do what everyone else in the world does, including their own alliance war game mode and reverts to ELO matching by win/loss record.
This matches weaker against weaker and stronger against stronger, but unlike prestige matching it *judges* "weaker" and "stronger" by whether you win or not. Someone that wins three times in a row is obviously a stronger player than their competition, and gets matched against players who are winning against that same competition.
I don't know why they have to learn this lesson twice, but apparently they do, and it always takes a few years.
I wanted to see how Paragons feel about current matchmaking in Bgs so figured I'd ask this question to all of you.
Quick background, I'm end game player, have 100% all content (spend a little but very far from a whale) and before the "git gud" comments flood in, be advised that I have hundreds of gameplay vids on my channel showing I'm fine on the "git gud" category.
Last few seasons, with minimal effort I was out of victory track and in gladiator circuit within first week of BG season. Ive finished decently high top 1000 players in GC each season (without much effort) of BG.
This season, I've put in similar amount of effort but am still in gold. I know with more effort that will change soon and will change as the season goes on, but I can't help but feel this seems a bit unfair based on recent matchmaking changes.
Im fairly positive I'm not the only paragon or high prestige player in this situation and can't help but get annoyed when I see far weaker players who would get slaughtered against me already in GC because the matchmaking system matches weak players against weak players while strong players have to try and win several in a row against end gamers and massive whales in every tier starting in bronze.
This is the only game mode that I'm aware of that actually rewards players for having weaker accounts, avoiding rankups and avoiding prestige. It really doesn't make sense to me. It makes less sense since Kabam tries to do a very similar thing in AW seasons a couple years ago and it was a massive failure and resulted in far weaker alliances getting same or better rewards than much stronger alliances.
We are all competing for same rewards in BG (yes, stores have different prices but we competing for exact same rewards, to include exact same amount of battleground tokens) so why is it setup this way.
I know the lower players have to love this so I'm sure plenty of troll comments coming, but I'm curious to see how others in similar situations feel.
Personally, I feel like it's counterproductive on Kabams end doing it this way.
Am cruising through easily on my main(paragon) and currently on a 12 match win streak, soon will be in GC. But on my alt(thronebreaker) having only 4 r3s ..rest r2s and 5 stars are getting matched with triple my account size full of r3s and r4s who trash me like anything...so your experience is opposite of mine..lol
Keep in mind BG season is now half over, the over achievers are already in GC so of course it easier now. What part of the season makes a massive difference, just like in past seasons, weaker players getting matched with stronger players had to wait until around week 3 of BG to start progressing.
That's pretty much exactly same situation your in right now and why your having different experience. Since writing this, I'm a few wins from GC as the competition has greatly decreased since the beginning of the season. The point is stronger players shouldn't have to sit around and wait for other stronger players to progress while weaker players already had easy path to GC.
I'm a 1.4mil paragon with fairly high prestige top end roster because of my chosen R4s (kitty max sign, QS mid sig, Galan mid sig) and top two R3s are max sig CAPIW and mid sig BWDO. I've made it to GC with ease in previous seasons but now I am getting owned hard in BG matchups and stuck in Gold. For every 1 solid matchup, I get 2 stupid hard matchups that I either get crushed or just BARELY squeeze out something miraculous with a lucky deck draw. My deck isn't bad and I don't have issues with the node, just tired of getting matched with someone that only has R3s and 4s
side note - I am 90% explored 8.1 and cruising through but having a time with the new EQ. This difficulty boost is tough and rewards arent as good as they should be
It's absolute GARBAGE. 15.8k+ fights the entire VT is friggin AWFUL. Kabam is killing their best gamemode.
Whats your prestige?
15.7. I almost never got anyone under that and typically get higher in Platinum and below. Not that I'm in Diamond and there are fewer people I've been getting some of the lower accounts that were gifted runs to Diamond.
My experience is quite similar: this season I'm typically matching with bigger accounts with many more r4s than mine. As a result, my win/lose ratio has dropped, making the climb soooo much slower.
Now I can live with it, but getting tired of having super hard (and long, and tense) matches all the time in the VT.
I have a fairly large account (11 R4s, 50+ R3s, 15,750~ Champion Prestige, 3.6M TBH)
Matchmaking seems fair in the sense that I'm often facing similar quality opponents so not really much to complain about there. Haven't gone too hard since I was on vacation the first week of the season but have reached Gold 1 with a win rate likely around 60%. My issue is less with matchmaking and more similar to what DNA pointed out.
IMO, the entire Victory Track should be scrapped. I don't think it's accomplishing what is set out to be and all of those rewards can be redistributed through additional Objectives/Solo/Alliance Events and Season Rewards. This would make it easier to consistently match people via ELO from the beginning and throughout each season. When a season resets, chop everyone's rating in half and just keep going.
I have a fairly large account (11 R4s, 50+ R3s, 15,750~ Champion Prestige, 3.6M TBH)
Matchmaking seems fair in the sense that I'm often facing similar quality opponents so not really much to complain about there. Haven't gone too hard since I was on vacation the first week of the season but have reached Gold 1 with a win rate likely around 60%. My issue is less with matchmaking and more similar to what DNA pointed out.
IMO, the entire Victory Track should be scrapped. I don't think it's accomplishing what is set out to be and all of those rewards can be redistributed through additional Objectives/Solo/Alliance Events and Season Rewards. This would make it easier to consistently match people via ELO from the beginning and throughout each season. When a season resets, chop everyone's rating in half and just keep going.
There is zero reason a 15.7k player should have a 60% win rate in Gold when everyone in the game starts at the same spot. You should be breezing though that level.
I have a fairly large account (11 R4s, 50+ R3s, 15,750~ Champion Prestige, 3.6M TBH)
Matchmaking seems fair in the sense that I'm often facing similar quality opponents so not really much to complain about there. Haven't gone too hard since I was on vacation the first week of the season but have reached Gold 1 with a win rate likely around 60%. My issue is less with matchmaking and more similar to what DNA pointed out.
IMO, the entire Victory Track should be scrapped. I don't think it's accomplishing what is set out to be and all of those rewards can be redistributed through additional Objectives/Solo/Alliance Events and Season Rewards. This would make it easier to consistently match people via ELO from the beginning and throughout each season. When a season resets, chop everyone's rating in half and just keep going.
There is zero reason a 15.7k player should have a 60% win rate in Gold when everyone in the game starts at the same spot. You should be breezing though that level.
You're not wrong but your point is just different than mine. I have no desire to beat up on smaller accounts than me until I've reached Platinum/Diamond/GC (I finished 1700th~ in GC last season). I'm facing similar opponents and winning 60% of the time which I have no issue with. That's not a matchmaking problem. With the way the rewards are currently being distributed, a problem clearly exists but it's a result of issues with the reward structure rather than a matchmaking issue.
I have a fairly large account (11 R4s, 50+ R3s, 15,750~ Champion Prestige, 3.6M TBH)
Matchmaking seems fair in the sense that I'm often facing similar quality opponents so not really much to complain about there. Haven't gone too hard since I was on vacation the first week of the season but have reached Gold 1 with a win rate likely around 60%. My issue is less with matchmaking and more similar to what DNA pointed out.
IMO, the entire Victory Track should be scrapped. I don't think it's accomplishing what is set out to be and all of those rewards can be redistributed through additional Objectives/Solo/Alliance Events and Season Rewards. This would make it easier to consistently match people via ELO from the beginning and throughout each season. When a season resets, chop everyone's rating in half and just keep going.
There is zero reason a 15.7k player should have a 60% win rate in Gold when everyone in the game starts at the same spot. You should be breezing though that level.
This would be correct if matchmaking was setup different or in a way similar to AW, however, they way it's setup in BG, a 60% in gold BG isn't bad at all.
If everyone in gold was eligible to fight each other than 60% would be terrible for 15.7 prestige, however, matchmaking forces him to go against similar size accounts every single match starting in bronze. Having a high prestige does NOT give the user any advantage all in victory circuit, in fact, as we are seeing many agree in this thread, a high prestige actually makes it much harder to have a higher winning %
I have a fairly large account (11 R4s, 50+ R3s, 15,750~ Champion Prestige, 3.6M TBH)
Matchmaking seems fair in the sense that I'm often facing similar quality opponents so not really much to complain about there. Haven't gone too hard since I was on vacation the first week of the season but have reached Gold 1 with a win rate likely around 60%. My issue is less with matchmaking and more similar to what DNA pointed out.
IMO, the entire Victory Track should be scrapped. I don't think it's accomplishing what is set out to be and all of those rewards can be redistributed through additional Objectives/Solo/Alliance Events and Season Rewards. This would make it easier to consistently match people via ELO from the beginning and throughout each season. When a season resets, chop everyone's rating in half and just keep going.
There is zero reason a 15.7k player should have a 60% win rate in Gold when everyone in the game starts at the same spot. You should be breezing though that level.
You're only looking at a face value here. Prestige does not equal wins in BGs, especially in this meta. I took out R4 6s and put in max 5 stars for this meta... I get what you are saying... but prestige means next to nothing right now in BGs
Adding another datapoint: I'm 14k prestige. ~1.6m account rating. 3 r4's and 14 r3s. Been cruising through VT so far (I'm at Diamond II) with maybe 5-10 losses total? Faced lots of very large accounts with all r3's and double digit r4s. Faced a lot of lower accounts with mainly 5*s.
I definitely think matchmaking needs to be fixed. Take out any prestige/account rating/deck rating calculations and just make it so that you can face anyone in your bracket. That's how most games do it.
@Kabam Miike any chance ya all can go through this thread and relay the concern from higher up players who feels like they are being punished for rankups.
There is a growing feeling that lower players have a much easier path to GC than higher players and many (to Include myself) are starting to hold off and pass on ranking up champs, avoiding using sig stones, avoiding relics and avoiding anything else that will group is higher in the current BG matchmaking process.
I really think that developers should be aware that this matchmaking process is being counterproductive to every other mode and process within this game, which rewards growing stronger (to include spending money to grow stronger).
@Kabam Miike any chance ya all can go through this thread and relay the concern from higher up players who feels like they are being punished for rankups.
There is a growing feeling that lower players have a much easier path to GC than higher players and many (to Include myself) are starting to hold off and pass on ranking up champs, avoiding using sig stones, avoiding relics and avoiding anything else that will group is higher in the current BG matchmaking process.
I really think that developers should be aware that this matchmaking process is being counterproductive to every other mode and process within this game, which rewards growing stronger (to include spending money to grow stronger).
@Kabam Miike any chance ya all can go through this thread and relay the concern from higher up players who feels like they are being punished for rankups.
There is a growing feeling that lower players have a much easier path to GC than higher players and many (to Include myself) are starting to hold off and pass on ranking up champs, avoiding using sig stones, avoiding relics and avoiding anything else that will group is higher in the current BG matchmaking process.
I really think that developers should be aware that this matchmaking process is being counterproductive to every other mode and process within this game, which rewards growing stronger (to include spending money to grow stronger).
yea I was gonna rank 4 my Knull (who's sig 160). after seeing how negatively prestige can affect your BG experience, I'll be minimizing my prestige
Am cruising through easily on my main(paragon) and currently on a 12 match win streak, soon will be in GC. But on my alt(thronebreaker) having only 4 r3s ..rest r2s and 5 stars are getting matched with triple my account size full of r3s and r4s who trash me like anything...so your experience is opposite of mine..lol
Something doesn’t feel right! On my 2nd account i always get matched up with accounts smaller than me, and all fairly easy wins. But on my main account i get matched up with accounts 2X the size of mine.
Disclaimer: I have no direct knowledge of how the BG match maker works. I only know what I can infer from what I see, same as everyone else. No one at Kabam has given me any details of the specifics of the match system.
I have a theory given my own observations and what I keep hearing from other people. Kabam has already stated that they are looking at roster to match, not win/loss record or ELO, at least for the most part. This was to eliminate deck manipulation - your deck composition does not affect who you are matched against anymore. And that seems to be the case in general. However, I have a gut feeling that the game is not matching us exactly, but in bands. In other words, if my roster metric is, just to make up a number, 14000, the game is not looking for other 14000s to match against. It isn't even looking for 14000 plus or minus a small amount as in alliance war. Instead, I think the game has invisible roster "bands" that are pretty wide. Perhaps even to the point where there are only a few of these bands. Say, zero to 1000, 1001 to 4000, 4001 to 9000, 9001 to 13000, and 13001+. That sort of thing. If your roster is a 10000, you will match against anyone from 9001 to 13000 (in my made-up example).
If you just so happen to be sitting near the top of a roster band, you're going to tend to have good match ups. Like, every time. If you happen to be sitting near the bottom of one, good luck. My main has a ~35% win rate. My pathetic Cav alt that hasn't even changed decks in the last two seasons has a 75%+ win rate. I think that may be because my main is sitting in the middle or lower end of the top roster band, while my Cav alt is so sucky he sits at the top of a very low band. The combination of lower bands tending to have less experienced players and my roster just happening to lie near the top of a roster band might be handing me very good match ups most of the time, while my main account has to deal with the more skilled players using very strong rosters most of the time.
Again, this is speculation on my part, but given my limited experience with the new matching system (as we all currently have) it feels right. If so, I doubt Kabam will tell us. If they did this, say for efficiency purposes, they would not want players figuring out precisely how the match system works and then trying to jockey their rosters to get a predictable advantage.
Am cruising through easily on my main(paragon) and currently on a 12 match win streak, soon will be in GC. But on my alt(thronebreaker) having only 4 r3s ..rest r2s and 5 stars are getting matched with triple my account size full of r3s and r4s who trash me like anything...so your experience is opposite of mine..lol
Something doesn’t feel right! On my 2nd account i always get matched up with accounts smaller than me, and all fairly easy wins. But on my main account i get matched up with accounts 2X the size of mine.
Disclaimer: I have no direct knowledge of how the BG match maker works. I only know what I can infer from what I see, same as everyone else. No one at Kabam has given me any details of the specifics of the match system.
I have a theory given my own observations and what I keep hearing from other people. Kabam has already stated that they are looking at roster to match, not win/loss record or ELO, at least for the most part. This was to eliminate deck manipulation - your deck composition does not affect who you are matched against anymore. And that seems to be the case in general. However, I have a gut feeling that the game is not matching us exactly, but in bands. In other words, if my roster metric is, just to make up a number, 14000, the game is not looking for other 14000s to match against. It isn't even looking for 14000 plus or minus a small amount as in alliance war. Instead, I think the game has invisible roster "bands" that are pretty wide. Perhaps even to the point where there are only a few of these bands. Say, zero to 1000, 1001 to 4000, 4001 to 9000, 9001 to 13000, and 13001+. That sort of thing. If your roster is a 10000, you will match against anyone from 9001 to 13000 (in my made-up example).
If you just so happen to be sitting near the top of a roster band, you're going to tend to have good match ups. Like, every time. If you happen to be sitting near the bottom of one, good luck. My main has a ~35% win rate. My pathetic Cav alt that hasn't even changed decks in the last two seasons has a 75%+ win rate. I think that may be because my main is sitting in the middle or lower end of the top roster band, while my Cav alt is so sucky he sits at the top of a very low band. The combination of lower bands tending to have less experienced players and my roster just happening to lie near the top of a roster band might be handing me very good match ups most of the time, while my main account has to deal with the more skilled players using very strong rosters most of the time.
Again, this is speculation on my part, but given my limited experience with the new matching system (as we all currently have) it feels right. If so, I doubt Kabam will tell us. If they did this, say for efficiency purposes, they would not want players figuring out precisely how the match system works and then trying to jockey their rosters to get a predictable advantage.
Nice information and how of curiosity, can you please share your current BG ranks for your main and mini. Based on what I read, it seems like it's safe to say your mini is probably ranked similar or even higher than your main(depending on how much BG you use on each account).
If your mini can compete at same or higher BG tiers than your main without facing accounts as strong as your main, then I can't understand how Kabam is considering this fair.
The current matchmaking system feels like a baseball analogy such as minor leagues A, AA, AAA and then the majors (best players). It currently feels like matchmaking has the lower leagues facing each other much like baseball would, however, where things get nutty is that in baseball they compete for different rewards and have much different salaries.
It feels like Kabam is allowing a strong "A" minor league roster (lowest minor league players) to compete only against A league teams but then paying them the same salary (BG rewards) as a major league player and then allowing them to compete for the world series title by allowing them in the playoffs (gladiator circuit).
Am cruising through easily on my main(paragon) and currently on a 12 match win streak, soon will be in GC. But on my alt(thronebreaker) having only 4 r3s ..rest r2s and 5 stars are getting matched with triple my account size full of r3s and r4s who trash me like anything...so your experience is opposite of mine..lol
Something doesn’t feel right! On my 2nd account i always get matched up with accounts smaller than me, and all fairly easy wins. But on my main account i get matched up with accounts 2X the size of mine.
Disclaimer: I have no direct knowledge of how the BG match maker works. I only know what I can infer from what I see, same as everyone else. No one at Kabam has given me any details of the specifics of the match system.
I have a theory given my own observations and what I keep hearing from other people. Kabam has already stated that they are looking at roster to match, not win/loss record or ELO, at least for the most part. This was to eliminate deck manipulation - your deck composition does not affect who you are matched against anymore. And that seems to be the case in general. However, I have a gut feeling that the game is not matching us exactly, but in bands. In other words, if my roster metric is, just to make up a number, 14000, the game is not looking for other 14000s to match against. It isn't even looking for 14000 plus or minus a small amount as in alliance war. Instead, I think the game has invisible roster "bands" that are pretty wide. Perhaps even to the point where there are only a few of these bands. Say, zero to 1000, 1001 to 4000, 4001 to 9000, 9001 to 13000, and 13001+. That sort of thing. If your roster is a 10000, you will match against anyone from 9001 to 13000 (in my made-up example).
If you just so happen to be sitting near the top of a roster band, you're going to tend to have good match ups. Like, every time. If you happen to be sitting near the bottom of one, good luck. My main has a ~35% win rate. My pathetic Cav alt that hasn't even changed decks in the last two seasons has a 75%+ win rate. I think that may be because my main is sitting in the middle or lower end of the top roster band, while my Cav alt is so sucky he sits at the top of a very low band. The combination of lower bands tending to have less experienced players and my roster just happening to lie near the top of a roster band might be handing me very good match ups most of the time, while my main account has to deal with the more skilled players using very strong rosters most of the time.
Again, this is speculation on my part, but given my limited experience with the new matching system (as we all currently have) it feels right. If so, I doubt Kabam will tell us. If they did this, say for efficiency purposes, they would not want players figuring out precisely how the match system works and then trying to jockey their rosters to get a predictable advantage.
Nice information and how of curiosity, can you please share your current BG ranks for your main and mini. Based on what I read, it seems like it's safe to say your mini is probably ranked similar or even higher than your main(depending on how much BG you use on each account).
It isn't, because I don't really grind my mini much. My main is now in G2 and while I don't remember how many matches that took, I do currently have 147k points in the solo event. My Cav alt is only in S3, but has lost exactly one match so far. Once I finish exploring TB, I will probably try to see how far I can get on the alt. If I can maintain my win percentage to at least Gold 1 or higher, I think that would be much stronger evidence of what I'm seeing across other anecdotes I've been hearing.
I have a fairly large account (11 R4s, 50+ R3s, 15,750~ Champion Prestige, 3.6M TBH)
Matchmaking seems fair in the sense that I'm often facing similar quality opponents so not really much to complain about there. Haven't gone too hard since I was on vacation the first week of the season but have reached Gold 1 with a win rate likely around 60%. My issue is less with matchmaking and more similar to what DNA pointed out.
IMO, the entire Victory Track should be scrapped. I don't think it's accomplishing what is set out to be and all of those rewards can be redistributed through additional Objectives/Solo/Alliance Events and Season Rewards. This would make it easier to consistently match people via ELO from the beginning and throughout each season. When a season resets, chop everyone's rating in half and just keep going.
There is zero reason a 15.7k player should have a 60% win rate in Gold when everyone in the game starts at the same spot. You should be breezing though that level.
You're not wrong but your point is just different than mine. I have no desire to beat up on smaller accounts than me until I've reached Platinum/Diamond/GC (I finished 1700th~ in GC last season). I'm facing similar opponents and winning 60% of the time which I have no issue with. That's not a matchmaking problem. With the way the rewards are currently being distributed, a problem clearly exists but it's a result of issues with the reward structure rather than a matchmaking issue.
In the current system that they set up, that's how it should be.
IMO, everyone starting at 0 is a terrible idea but they seem to be stuck on that.
I have a fairly large account (11 R4s, 50+ R3s, 15,750~ Champion Prestige, 3.6M TBH)
Matchmaking seems fair in the sense that I'm often facing similar quality opponents so not really much to complain about there. Haven't gone too hard since I was on vacation the first week of the season but have reached Gold 1 with a win rate likely around 60%. My issue is less with matchmaking and more similar to what DNA pointed out.
IMO, the entire Victory Track should be scrapped. I don't think it's accomplishing what is set out to be and all of those rewards can be redistributed through additional Objectives/Solo/Alliance Events and Season Rewards. This would make it easier to consistently match people via ELO from the beginning and throughout each season. When a season resets, chop everyone's rating in half and just keep going.
There is zero reason a 15.7k player should have a 60% win rate in Gold when everyone in the game starts at the same spot. You should be breezing though that level.
This would be correct if matchmaking was setup different or in a way similar to AW, however, they way it's setup in BG, a 60% in gold BG isn't bad at all.
If everyone in gold was eligible to fight each other than 60% would be terrible for 15.7 prestige, however, matchmaking forces him to go against similar size accounts every single match starting in bronze. Having a high prestige does NOT give the user any advantage all in victory circuit, in fact, as we are seeing many agree in this thread, a high prestige actually makes it much harder to have a higher winning %
Yeah that's the point. He's getting tough matches but a decent player with a Cav account will cruse to the GC. That is what I have an issue with. We're all fighting for the same rewards but the matchmaking doesn't make every eligible to play. It's really stupid.
I agree with OP 100%. I don't even open my relics crystals, in hope I will fall behind in prestige in a couple of seasons and be able to enjoy the mode once again against people with similar deck power as mine.
New Paragon plus 8 x R3, 12.5k prestige, prestige is not even a remote consideration for any rankups.
I haven't ranked anyone specifically for this season but have wasted some R2 material on traditional defenders (I don't do AW)
Gold 1, 132k solo points
14 and 8 win/loss from what I can see onscreen.
I have paid no attention at all to the opponent's roster size but "generally" see stronger accounts/better suited to this meta since my bottom 10 are probably pretty bad.
My loss frequency of occurrence:
Bad gameplay by me Input issues (could also be point one) Bad draft
Never made GC, generally end up in Plat x then get bored and stop altogether.
I don't understand why BG's are not set up like war. It makes no sense to use a completely different metric.
I have no problem being beat on by big accounts on their way to GC and if gold 3 is all I can muster because of the strength of mine, that's the way it is.
I feel forced to play BG's due to the stupid amount of 6* shards on offer. They simply aren't available in this quantity anywhere else for the relative effort and zero item use.
Comments
I'm constantly facing other Paragon accounts with full armies of 6R4s. It is almost irrelevant whom I ban, since they always have a ton of other incredible options. I struggle to make a win and I'm stuck in Bronze III. Yes, I do know that there is some strategy involved in choosing your defenders, based on their deck etc.
I have decided not to stress about it, though. I play my 3 matches every 2 days, win one or two, buy some 6* shards / sig stones from the BG store and call it a day.
If Kabam expect me to accept a pay-to-play game mode, they have another thing coming.
The past week has been rotten for me in BGs. It’s pretty much one up, one back—or for the past two days, just back and back again.
Toss out the few matches replete with block failure where I got spontaneously clocked (talking about you, Domino) and I’ve had several 2-1 losses where I just got outdrafted or outfoxed by a bit.
At least 4 matches I’ve celebrated because I had no Valk, Galan, AA or Hulkling ban but went on to have none or just one of those champs show up in my draft. I can’t recall the last time I saw a sandbagger, and I’ve got ally mates who have cruised to Diamond/Uru with some of the easiest matches you can imagine.
It’s a weird setup. I’ve got R4 materials for four more champs, but I refuse to let BGs dictate that and I’d rather not jack my prestige higher to get tougher BG matches, at least not until I can escape Gold and Platinum.
Bright side: Combination of this BG effect with the tedium of the new TB EQ has done wonders for my time away from MCoC.
Dr. Zola
@Kabam Miike still no answer from you or @Kabam Jax on if this is intended?
I have specifically unbound relics and have stopped leveling relics to try and keep my prestige down.
But.... @DNA3000 has said it better above this. Great post.
That's pretty much exactly same situation your in right now and why your having different experience. Since writing this, I'm a few wins from GC as the competition has greatly decreased since the beginning of the season. The point is stronger players shouldn't have to sit around and wait for other stronger players to progress while weaker players already had easy path to GC.
side note - I am 90% explored 8.1 and cruising through but having a time with the new EQ. This difficulty boost is tough and rewards arent as good as they should be
I have 13 R4s but many of them aren't even usable in this meta.
I refuse to do any rankups solely for this meta that will be gone in 2 weeks or so.
These nodes should avoid having to have specific champs in the future. I should be able to use anyone on my roster with some skillful play.
Ranking champs to deal with a temporary node to get rank up resources seems counterintuitive.
And seriously Kabam... I don't ban hulkling or galan so I can try to draft them... could I please have them in my roll options just once?
Dr. Zola
Now I can live with it, but getting tired of having super hard (and long, and tense) matches all the time in the VT.
Matchmaking seems fair in the sense that I'm often facing similar quality opponents so not really much to complain about there. Haven't gone too hard since I was on vacation the first week of the season but have reached Gold 1 with a win rate likely around 60%. My issue is less with matchmaking and more similar to what DNA pointed out.
IMO, the entire Victory Track should be scrapped. I don't think it's accomplishing what is set out to be and all of those rewards can be redistributed through additional Objectives/Solo/Alliance Events and Season Rewards. This would make it easier to consistently match people via ELO from the beginning and throughout each season. When a season resets, chop everyone's rating in half and just keep going.
If everyone in gold was eligible to fight each other than 60% would be terrible for 15.7 prestige, however, matchmaking forces him to go against similar size accounts every single match starting in bronze. Having a high prestige does NOT give the user any advantage all in victory circuit, in fact, as we are seeing many agree in this thread, a high prestige actually makes it much harder to have a higher winning %
I definitely think matchmaking needs to be fixed. Take out any prestige/account rating/deck rating calculations and just make it so that you can face anyone in your bracket. That's how most games do it.
There is a growing feeling that lower players have a much easier path to GC than higher players and many (to Include myself) are starting to hold off and pass on ranking up champs, avoiding using sig stones, avoiding relics and avoiding anything else that will group is higher in the current BG matchmaking process.
I really think that developers should be aware that this matchmaking process is being counterproductive to every other mode and process within this game, which rewards growing stronger (to include spending money to grow stronger).
I have a theory given my own observations and what I keep hearing from other people. Kabam has already stated that they are looking at roster to match, not win/loss record or ELO, at least for the most part. This was to eliminate deck manipulation - your deck composition does not affect who you are matched against anymore. And that seems to be the case in general. However, I have a gut feeling that the game is not matching us exactly, but in bands. In other words, if my roster metric is, just to make up a number, 14000, the game is not looking for other 14000s to match against. It isn't even looking for 14000 plus or minus a small amount as in alliance war. Instead, I think the game has invisible roster "bands" that are pretty wide. Perhaps even to the point where there are only a few of these bands. Say, zero to 1000, 1001 to 4000, 4001 to 9000, 9001 to 13000, and 13001+. That sort of thing. If your roster is a 10000, you will match against anyone from 9001 to 13000 (in my made-up example).
If you just so happen to be sitting near the top of a roster band, you're going to tend to have good match ups. Like, every time. If you happen to be sitting near the bottom of one, good luck. My main has a ~35% win rate. My pathetic Cav alt that hasn't even changed decks in the last two seasons has a 75%+ win rate. I think that may be because my main is sitting in the middle or lower end of the top roster band, while my Cav alt is so sucky he sits at the top of a very low band. The combination of lower bands tending to have less experienced players and my roster just happening to lie near the top of a roster band might be handing me very good match ups most of the time, while my main account has to deal with the more skilled players using very strong rosters most of the time.
Again, this is speculation on my part, but given my limited experience with the new matching system (as we all currently have) it feels right. If so, I doubt Kabam will tell us. If they did this, say for efficiency purposes, they would not want players figuring out precisely how the match system works and then trying to jockey their rosters to get a predictable advantage.
If your mini can compete at same or higher BG tiers than your main without facing accounts as strong as your main, then I can't understand how Kabam is considering this fair.
The current matchmaking system feels like a baseball analogy such as minor leagues A, AA, AAA and then the majors (best players). It currently feels like matchmaking has the lower leagues facing each other much like baseball would, however, where things get nutty is that in baseball they compete for different rewards and have much different salaries.
It feels like Kabam is allowing a strong "A" minor league roster (lowest minor league players) to compete only against A league teams but then paying them the same salary (BG rewards) as a major league player and then allowing them to compete for the world series title by allowing them in the playoffs (gladiator circuit).
IMO, everyone starting at 0 is a terrible idea but they seem to be stuck on that.
I haven't ranked anyone specifically for this season but have wasted some R2 material on traditional defenders (I don't do AW)
Gold 1, 132k solo points
14 and 8 win/loss from what I can see onscreen.
I have paid no attention at all to the opponent's roster size but "generally" see stronger accounts/better suited to this meta since my bottom 10 are probably pretty bad.
My loss frequency of occurrence:
Bad gameplay by me
Input issues (could also be point one)
Bad draft
Never made GC, generally end up in Plat x then get bored and stop altogether.
I don't understand why BG's are not set up like war. It makes no sense to use a completely different metric.
I have no problem being beat on by big accounts on their way to GC and if gold 3 is all I can muster because of the strength of mine, that's the way it is.
I feel forced to play BG's due to the stupid amount of 6* shards on offer. They simply aren't available in this quantity anywhere else for the relative effort and zero item use.