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.
If I am correct, and at the moment all I have is a hunch and some educated guesswork, then this might be the worst possible strategy to employ. If I'm right, and this is at the moment a very big IF, then not ranking anything would freeze you in place in the match up brackets, which means you will match against the same (hard) opposition forever. Actually ranking things up *might* help, because as far as I can tell lower strength rosters are not always at a disadvantage, and if I'm right moving *upward* might actually move you from a bad place to a better place, by basically moving from the top of one match bracket to the bottom of the next one.
Again, I can make no guarantees this will work. However, we have lots of anecdotal evidence of very weak rosters getting very good match ups, so not all weak rosters are getting bad match ups. Changing *something* could help. Changing nothing is likely to keep things as they are. If things as they are are not good for you, shaking things up could make things better. They probably can't make things worse.
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.
If I am correct, and at the moment all I have is a hunch and some educated guesswork, then this might be the worst possible strategy to employ. If I'm right, and this is at the moment a very big IF, then not ranking anything would freeze you in place in the match up brackets, which means you will match against the same (hard) opposition forever. Actually ranking things up *might* help, because as far as I can tell lower strength rosters are not always at a disadvantage, and if I'm right moving *upward* might actually move you from a bad place to a better place, by basically moving from the top of one match bracket to the bottom of the next one.
Again, I can make no guarantees this will work. However, we have lots of anecdotal evidence of very weak rosters getting very good match ups, so not all weak rosters are getting bad match ups. Changing *something* could help. Changing nothing is likely to keep things as they are. If things as they are are not good for you, shaking things up could make things better. They probably can't make things worse.
I think that the theory is if he doesn't rank or open relics, and others do, then he will eventually rise to the top of his bracket as his peers rank into the next bracket.
Any way you look at it, a game mode that incentivizes NOT ranking or opening relics/crystals is just awful.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
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.
If I am correct, and at the moment all I have is a hunch and some educated guesswork, then this might be the worst possible strategy to employ. If I'm right, and this is at the moment a very big IF, then not ranking anything would freeze you in place in the match up brackets, which means you will match against the same (hard) opposition forever. Actually ranking things up *might* help, because as far as I can tell lower strength rosters are not always at a disadvantage, and if I'm right moving *upward* might actually move you from a bad place to a better place, by basically moving from the top of one match bracket to the bottom of the next one.
Again, I can make no guarantees this will work. However, we have lots of anecdotal evidence of very weak rosters getting very good match ups, so not all weak rosters are getting bad match ups. Changing *something* could help. Changing nothing is likely to keep things as they are. If things as they are are not good for you, shaking things up could make things better. They probably can't make things worse.
My 12k alt faces the same people my 15k main does and those are typically 16k opponents lol both accounts sitting in D2 right now.
If I am correct, and at the moment all I have is a hunch and some educated guesswork, then this might be the worst possible strategy to employ. If I'm right, and this is at the moment a very big IF, then not ranking anything would freeze you in place in the match up brackets, which means you will match against the same (hard) opposition forever. Actually ranking things up *might* help, because as far as I can tell lower strength rosters are not always at a disadvantage, and if I'm right moving *upward* might actually move you from a bad place to a better place, by basically moving from the top of one match bracket to the bottom of the next one.
Again, I can make no guarantees this will work. However, we have lots of anecdotal evidence of very weak rosters getting very good match ups, so not all weak rosters are getting bad match ups. Changing *something* could help. Changing nothing is likely to keep things as they are. If things as they are are not good for you, shaking things up could make things better. They probably can't make things worse.
Yesterday, I seemed to be fairly matched with comparable accounts - 1 or 2 6R4, a few 6R3, and then mixes of everything below that.
Then I opened two 6-star crystals - one new, and one dupe. I also used 10 5-star sig stones that were going to expire.
Cut to today: Matched up against 5 accounts that had pretty much entirely 6R3/6R4 in their deck. I also got matched against 1 account that was mostly 5-stars in their deck.
Sure, the difference could be that I went up a Victory Track tier, and so there are less possible players to be matchup against. But that fear of opening crystals, and adding sigs to characters, feels irrational but also maybe logical?
I agree with OP. If the rewards are the same, then we should all be the same.
The matchmaking tries to mimic AW to a degree... having stacked rosters face stacked rosters similar to how similar ranked alliance are matched in war... but the big difference is that in AW... those stacked alliances in Tier 1 wars / Masters are getting way better rewards than those in Silver. Its litteraly a different game being played with different nodes, globals, bans etc.
but in BG... we are all the same. there is no "well you are stacked... we'll put you against other stacked players, but will compete for higher rewards" like might e done if Paragon players started in say Platinum or Diamond tier... but if we all start in bronze... and are all playing for a small pile of artifacts... then we should all have an equal chance of matching up.
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.
If I am correct, and at the moment all I have is a hunch and some educated guesswork, then this might be the worst possible strategy to employ. If I'm right, and this is at the moment a very big IF, then not ranking anything would freeze you in place in the match up brackets, which means you will match against the same (hard) opposition forever. Actually ranking things up *might* help, because as far as I can tell lower strength rosters are not always at a disadvantage, and if I'm right moving *upward* might actually move you from a bad place to a better place, by basically moving from the top of one match bracket to the bottom of the next one.
Again, I can make no guarantees this will work. However, we have lots of anecdotal evidence of very weak rosters getting very good match ups, so not all weak rosters are getting bad match ups. Changing *something* could help. Changing nothing is likely to keep things as they are. If things as they are are not good for you, shaking things up could make things better. They probably can't make things worse.
Well, I m a Paragon that gets matched with tank Paragons, I don't think there s a bracket bigger than that. Also, I hate relics, so it's a win-we ll see if it s going to help situation then.
It’s the same AW Prestige matchmaking fiasco once again. Kabam should realize Prestige matchmaking on a shared pool of rewards is unfair, no matter how you twist it. Battlegrounds matchmaking should be totally random, within the same Victory Track bracket (gold1 vs gold1 etc.). A stacked Paragon account should be able to face and demolish a newly Uncollected player, as long as they are at the same bracket, and send the UC player to story questing, where he should be, instead of overachieving rewards due to a broken matchmaking, on a competitive mode. It’s annoying seeing UC players bragging for their achievement on reaching GC, while there are many Paragons still sweating each other at VT. Matchmaking is worse than even sandbagging. Kabam tried to fast patch a problem, by creating a bigger one. Matchmaking should be RANDOM, anything else is unfair.
I'm still not personally too bitter about the meta, but it has made me rethink the banning subsequent RNG based draft.
I have a pretty diverse set of attackers at high ranks, but as others have pointed out, the true all-stars for this meta are immediately banned by your opponent if they don't have the same champ (I'm looking at you Galan).
To my point though, I just looked at my deck, and I have 17 attackers I can use. That said, many of them are situational, like Venompool against tech, Magneto against metal, Archangel against anyone who can feel get his toxin, etc. My point is, there are only a handful of champs that can truly be viable options against any defender, and when they get banned, now the mode is largely RNG based.
It wasn't until this meta, but it's kinda made me wish they would just let you draft from your full deck. Keep bans if you want to.
To be specific, you get matched with someone, go through their deck and place your three bans. After that though, I can pick the 7 champs I want from what remains after bans. The opponent and I don't see each others draft until we've both selected.
Maybe it's a stupid idea. Like I said, I never felt that way until this meta that is very niche in the attackers you can use.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
The question is why should matches be "fair" in victory track based on pi and/prestige? One can argue that "fair" is everyone in that specific bracket is fair game to each other and the only matchmaking criteria is what bracket your in.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
I'm still not personally too bitter about the meta, but it has made me rethink the banning subsequent RNG based draft.
I have a pretty diverse set of attackers at high ranks, but as others have pointed out, the true all-stars for this meta are immediately banned by your opponent if they don't have the same champ (I'm looking at you Galan).
To my point though, I just looked at my deck, and I have 17 attackers I can use. That said, many of them are situational, like Venompool against tech, Magneto against metal, Archangel against anyone who can feel get his toxin, etc. My point is, there are only a handful of champs that can truly be viable options against any defender, and when they get banned, now the mode is largely RNG based.
It wasn't until this meta, but it's kinda made me wish they would just let you draft from your full deck. Keep bans if you want to.
To be specific, you get matched with someone, go through their deck and place your three bans. After that though, I can pick the 7 champs I want from what remains after bans. The opponent and I don't see each others draft until we've both selected.
Maybe it's a stupid idea. Like I said, I never felt that way until this meta that is very niche in the attackers you can use.
I think your suggestion takes away exactly what is special about the game mode. In every mode (other than maybe Arena which is already easy enough) you get to pick the exact champion you want. This is the mode where you have to understand what all your champions can do and be far more strategic about what goes into your deck, who you actually choose, and how you deploy them in order to overcome that RNG aspect. If we got to just pick exactly who we wanted, every match would ultimately start to feel the same and the mode would be far more stale.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
The question is why should matches be "fair" in victory track based on pi and/prestige? One can argue that "fair" is everyone in that specific bracket is fair game to each other and the only matchmaking criteria is what bracket your in.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
I don't ever want ever want to be matched up against an Uncollected where all I have to do is remember to tap the right hand side of the screen to win. I don't think that's fun for anyone involved. This isn't a matchmaking problem, this is a reward structure issue. For AW (in general), an elite level alliance will never get matched against someone that has no chance against them. That more or less is similar to BGs. The difference is that the reward structure accurately compensates that elite alliance win or lose because there is an understanding that if they had given them a weaker opponent, that weaker opponent would have been stomped.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
The question is why should matches be "fair" in victory track based on pi and/prestige? One can argue that "fair" is everyone in that specific bracket is fair game to each other and the only matchmaking criteria is what bracket your in.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
I don't ever want ever want to be matched up against an Uncollected where all I have to do is remember to tap the right hand side of the screen to win. I don't think that's fun for anyone involved. This isn't a matchmaking problem, this is a reward structure issue. For AW (in general), an elite level alliance will never get matched against someone that has no chance against them. That more or less is similar to BGs. The difference is that the reward structure accurately compensates that elite alliance win or lose because there is an understanding that if they had given them a weaker opponent, that weaker opponent would have been stomped.
Your very wrong about AW as it doesn't take pi or prestige into account at all and can easily matchup alliances that are massively overmatched. My alliance is super aw chill but do optional aw, we very often are 2, 3, 4 or even 5 times higher total pi than those we face.
Pi and prestige have absolutely nothing to do with aw matchmaking, it all has to do with what tier they are in, which is why I 100% agree that BG matchmaking should be similar to AW matchmaking which goes by tier and everyone in that tier is eligible to face each other with pi and prestige having no account into it.
The main difference is that AW matchmaking doesn't reset everyone to the same starting point every season. They have done that in the past and the result was way worse that what we see in BG at starts of new seasons.
If they come up with a better system, it will work itself out much like it did in AW. AW alliance gets into a groove on where they belong, heavily based on strength of rosters and fight others in that tier.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
The question is why should matches be "fair" in victory track based on pi and/prestige? One can argue that "fair" is everyone in that specific bracket is fair game to each other and the only matchmaking criteria is what bracket your in.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
I don't ever want ever want to be matched up against an Uncollected where all I have to do is remember to tap the right hand side of the screen to win. I don't think that's fun for anyone involved. This isn't a matchmaking problem, this is a reward structure issue. For AW (in general), an elite level alliance will never get matched against someone that has no chance against them. That more or less is similar to BGs. The difference is that the reward structure accurately compensates that elite alliance win or lose because there is an understanding that if they had given them a weaker opponent, that weaker opponent would have been stomped.
Your very wrong about AW as it doesn't take pi or prestige into account at all and can easily matchup alliances that are massively overmatched. My alliance is super aw chill but do optional aw, we very often are 2, 3, 4 or even 5 times higher total pi than those we face.
Pi and prestige have absolutely nothing to do with aw matchmaking, it all has to do with what tier they are in, which is why I 100% agree that BG matchmaking should be similar to AW matchmaking which goes by tier and everyone in that tier is eligible to face each other with pi and prestige having no account into it.
The main difference is that AW matchmaking doesn't reset everyone to the same starting point every season. They have done that in the past and the result was way worse that what we see in BG at starts of new seasons.
If they come up with a better system, it will work itself out much like it did in AW. AW alliance gets into a groove on where they belong, heavily based on strength of rosters and fight others in that tier.
Where did I say that AW matchmaking is based off of PI or Prestige. I just said that they match you against an even strength alliance. BGs does use different criteria but in general also matches you against an evenly matched opponent. it's not a matchmaking issue, it's a rewards issue. If you are a Paragon and want to match against Uncollected accounts just because you are both in Bronze, you come across as a bit of a bully. I want the best rewards to go to the best accounts but AW is a great example where that can happen without requiring the need for strong players to ever face weak ones.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
The question is why should matches be "fair" in victory track based on pi and/prestige? One can argue that "fair" is everyone in that specific bracket is fair game to each other and the only matchmaking criteria is what bracket your in.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
I don't ever want ever want to be matched up against an Uncollected where all I have to do is remember to tap the right hand side of the screen to win. I don't think that's fun for anyone involved. This isn't a matchmaking problem, this is a reward structure issue. For AW (in general), an elite level alliance will never get matched against someone that has no chance against them. That more or less is similar to BGs. The difference is that the reward structure accurately compensates that elite alliance win or lose because there is an understanding that if they had given them a weaker opponent, that weaker opponent would have been stomped.
Your very wrong about AW as it doesn't take pi or prestige into account at all and can easily matchup alliances that are massively overmatched. My alliance is super aw chill but do optional aw, we very often are 2, 3, 4 or even 5 times higher total pi than those we face.
Pi and prestige have absolutely nothing to do with aw matchmaking, it all has to do with what tier they are in, which is why I 100% agree that BG matchmaking should be similar to AW matchmaking which goes by tier and everyone in that tier is eligible to face each other with pi and prestige having no account into it.
The main difference is that AW matchmaking doesn't reset everyone to the same starting point every season. They have done that in the past and the result was way worse that what we see in BG at starts of new seasons.
If they come up with a better system, it will work itself out much like it did in AW. AW alliance gets into a groove on where they belong, heavily based on strength of rosters and fight others in that tier.
Where did I say that AW matchmaking is based off of PI or Prestige. I just said that they match you against an even strength alliance. BGs does use different criteria but in general also matches you against an evenly matched opponent. it's not a matchmaking issue, it's a rewards issue. If you are a Paragon and want to match against Uncollected accounts just because you are both in Bronze, you come across as a bit of a bully. I want the best rewards to go to the best accounts but AW is a great example where that can happen without requiring the need for strong players to ever face weak ones.
Unfortunately the weaker should face the stronger, since the are fighting over the same pool of rewards. Same happens at AW. As long as you have similar rating you are eligible to match a very weaker or a very stronger opponent, in terms of Prestige or Total Base Hero Rating. Kabam had tried Prestige matchmaking at AW and it failed loudly, creating a massive backlash from stronger allies when they realized that weaker allies were placing higher than them while they shouldn’t. BGs matchmaking should be totally random, not only at GC but VT too. Kick start on different VT brackets, could solve any mismatching issues at the season start. My main 3,5mil 15,5k Prestige account is still at gold3, sweating over other Paragon stacked accounts, while my mini 600k Cavalier account is at Gladiator Circuit from the very first days, waiting already for the ranked rewards, which I doubt my main this season will get. This speaks volumes of how “Fair” prestige matchmaking is, and exposes the whole situation. On a progression based game, progression is penalised. I don’t rank up high prestige champs to r4, not using signature stones on my existing r4s neither open or upgrade relics. I also ignore any 6* signature offer or any offer that would raise my prestige. Is that the way Kabam wants us to play the game? I doubt it. It is opposing to their business model of selling progression through unit or $ offers. Kabam are you really aware of what’s happening right now at your most important mode, Battlegrounds? This is serious @Kabam Miike The company is losing money and players are losing patience 😠
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
The question is why should matches be "fair" in victory track based on pi and/prestige? One can argue that "fair" is everyone in that specific bracket is fair game to each other and the only matchmaking criteria is what bracket your in.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
I don't ever want ever want to be matched up against an Uncollected where all I have to do is remember to tap the right hand side of the screen to win. I don't think that's fun for anyone involved. This isn't a matchmaking problem, this is a reward structure issue. For AW (in general), an elite level alliance will never get matched against someone that has no chance against them. That more or less is similar to BGs. The difference is that the reward structure accurately compensates that elite alliance win or lose because there is an understanding that if they had given them a weaker opponent, that weaker opponent would have been stomped.
Your very wrong about AW as it doesn't take pi or prestige into account at all and can easily matchup alliances that are massively overmatched. My alliance is super aw chill but do optional aw, we very often are 2, 3, 4 or even 5 times higher total pi than those we face.
Pi and prestige have absolutely nothing to do with aw matchmaking, it all has to do with what tier they are in, which is why I 100% agree that BG matchmaking should be similar to AW matchmaking which goes by tier and everyone in that tier is eligible to face each other with pi and prestige having no account into it.
The main difference is that AW matchmaking doesn't reset everyone to the same starting point every season. They have done that in the past and the result was way worse that what we see in BG at starts of new seasons.
If they come up with a better system, it will work itself out much like it did in AW. AW alliance gets into a groove on where they belong, heavily based on strength of rosters and fight others in that tier.
Where did I say that AW matchmaking is based off of PI or Prestige. I just said that they match you against an even strength alliance. BGs does use different criteria but in general also matches you against an evenly matched opponent. it's not a matchmaking issue, it's a rewards issue. If you are a Paragon and want to match against Uncollected accounts just because you are both in Bronze, you come across as a bit of a bully. I want the best rewards to go to the best accounts but AW is a great example where that can happen without requiring the need for strong players to ever face weak ones.
So again, to my point, you think that my 90 million rating alliance is the same strength as a 20 million rating alliance that we face several times per aw season?
Can that 20 million alliance beat us because we put in less effort than them or because they are just amazing? Absolutely they can. Just like a weaker player can heat a much stronger players if they put in the effort, have stronger game/champ knowledge, etc.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
The question is why should matches be "fair" in victory track based on pi and/prestige? One can argue that "fair" is everyone in that specific bracket is fair game to each other and the only matchmaking criteria is what bracket your in.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
I don't ever want ever want to be matched up against an Uncollected where all I have to do is remember to tap the right hand side of the screen to win. I don't think that's fun for anyone involved. This isn't a matchmaking problem, this is a reward structure issue. For AW (in general), an elite level alliance will never get matched against someone that has no chance against them. That more or less is similar to BGs. The difference is that the reward structure accurately compensates that elite alliance win or lose because there is an understanding that if they had given them a weaker opponent, that weaker opponent would have been stomped.
Your very wrong about AW as it doesn't take pi or prestige into account at all and can easily matchup alliances that are massively overmatched. My alliance is super aw chill but do optional aw, we very often are 2, 3, 4 or even 5 times higher total pi than those we face.
Pi and prestige have absolutely nothing to do with aw matchmaking, it all has to do with what tier they are in, which is why I 100% agree that BG matchmaking should be similar to AW matchmaking which goes by tier and everyone in that tier is eligible to face each other with pi and prestige having no account into it.
The main difference is that AW matchmaking doesn't reset everyone to the same starting point every season. They have done that in the past and the result was way worse that what we see in BG at starts of new seasons.
If they come up with a better system, it will work itself out much like it did in AW. AW alliance gets into a groove on where they belong, heavily based on strength of rosters and fight others in that tier.
Where did I say that AW matchmaking is based off of PI or Prestige. I just said that they match you against an even strength alliance. BGs does use different criteria but in general also matches you against an evenly matched opponent. it's not a matchmaking issue, it's a rewards issue. If you are a Paragon and want to match against Uncollected accounts just because you are both in Bronze, you come across as a bit of a bully. I want the best rewards to go to the best accounts but AW is a great example where that can happen without requiring the need for strong players to ever face weak ones.
Define even strength. If you think that’s war rating then BG’s has a matchmaking problem since it does not rely on BG rating. If you think that’s alliance rating or prestige then you are wrong in understanding how matchmaking works in AW. This is for sure a matchmaking problem. What you are advocating is for a tier based system where lower accounts are fighting for far lower rewards than higher accounts. And that would again penalize the highly skilled lower accounts.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
The question is why should matches be "fair" in victory track based on pi and/prestige? One can argue that "fair" is everyone in that specific bracket is fair game to each other and the only matchmaking criteria is what bracket your in.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
I don't ever want ever want to be matched up against an Uncollected where all I have to do is remember to tap the right hand side of the screen to win. I don't think that's fun for anyone involved. This isn't a matchmaking problem, this is a reward structure issue. For AW (in general), an elite level alliance will never get matched against someone that has no chance against them. That more or less is similar to BGs. The difference is that the reward structure accurately compensates that elite alliance win or lose because there is an understanding that if they had given them a weaker opponent, that weaker opponent would have been stomped.
Your very wrong about AW as it doesn't take pi or prestige into account at all and can easily matchup alliances that are massively overmatched. My alliance is super aw chill but do optional aw, we very often are 2, 3, 4 or even 5 times higher total pi than those we face.
Pi and prestige have absolutely nothing to do with aw matchmaking, it all has to do with what tier they are in, which is why I 100% agree that BG matchmaking should be similar to AW matchmaking which goes by tier and everyone in that tier is eligible to face each other with pi and prestige having no account into it.
The main difference is that AW matchmaking doesn't reset everyone to the same starting point every season. They have done that in the past and the result was way worse that what we see in BG at starts of new seasons.
If they come up with a better system, it will work itself out much like it did in AW. AW alliance gets into a groove on where they belong, heavily based on strength of rosters and fight others in that tier.
Where did I say that AW matchmaking is based off of PI or Prestige. I just said that they match you against an even strength alliance. BGs does use different criteria but in general also matches you against an evenly matched opponent. it's not a matchmaking issue, it's a rewards issue. If you are a Paragon and want to match against Uncollected accounts just because you are both in Bronze, you come across as a bit of a bully. I want the best rewards to go to the best accounts but AW is a great example where that can happen without requiring the need for strong players to ever face weak ones.
So again, to my point, you think that my 90 million rating alliance is the same strength as a 20 million rating alliance that we face several times per aw season?
Can that 20 million alliance beat us because we put in less effort than them or because they are just amazing? Absolutely they can. Just like a weaker player can heat a much stronger players if they put in the effort, have stronger game/champ knowledge, etc.
I'm an advocate for ELO. I've said that in this thread. Many factors are used to determine what a lot of us refer to as strength (effort, game knowledge, roster, etc.). I'm just not an advocate of having a situation where an account like mine or yours should face someone who's strength is nowhere near mine just because we're both in Bronze for example. That's a recipe to make that other person quit the game or the game mode. If people at the bottom of the totem pole don't participate then a new tier of player becomes the bottom and they might start to experience the same issue and possibly choose to stop participating. The end result is that only the best people get to play. This is gatekeeping.
I've said it for years. If the issue is the Rewards, adjust the structure of that. Going for the same Rewards (which to be honest, it's not really the case considering the Store setup of BGs), is not a justification for allowing people to manipulate Matchmaking for easy Wins. That's not a competition. That's going for low-hanging fruit.
Al though I see the merits of your arguments and I have indulged in not ranking up champions myself just to get better matchmaking. I can rank 4 two of my rank 3 6 stars i choose not to because i do not want to match make with people who have multiple rank 4s until i can rank 4 atleast 3 characters for paragon boost, I am a thronebreaker myself. Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode. There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do. If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
See I agree with pretty much all of this. I can only speak for my matchups but I don't have a problem with matchmaking in my experience specifically. I am facing what I consider relatively even and fair matchups which is the goal of the game mode. The problem is just the significant disconnect between Victory and Track and Gladiator Circuit. Getting through those last few tiers of Victory Track last season was a huge battle facing tough opponents. Immediately after getting the Gladiator's Circuit though, I went on a ~15 match winning streak because it switched to Rating based matchmaking and I was just a significantly stronger player that my competition until I was about 150+ rating. There are currently people who are in Gladiator's Circuit who can barely win a match while others can't even get there but would have no issue getting above 100 or so rating. That's the disconnect that we're trying to address since the latter group is what I would consider better players but are getting significantly worse rewards.
The question is why should matches be "fair" in victory track based on pi and/prestige? One can argue that "fair" is everyone in that specific bracket is fair game to each other and the only matchmaking criteria is what bracket your in.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
I don't ever want ever want to be matched up against an Uncollected where all I have to do is remember to tap the right hand side of the screen to win. I don't think that's fun for anyone involved. This isn't a matchmaking problem, this is a reward structure issue. For AW (in general), an elite level alliance will never get matched against someone that has no chance against them. That more or less is similar to BGs. The difference is that the reward structure accurately compensates that elite alliance win or lose because there is an understanding that if they had given them a weaker opponent, that weaker opponent would have been stomped.
Your very wrong about AW as it doesn't take pi or prestige into account at all and can easily matchup alliances that are massively overmatched. My alliance is super aw chill but do optional aw, we very often are 2, 3, 4 or even 5 times higher total pi than those we face.
Pi and prestige have absolutely nothing to do with aw matchmaking, it all has to do with what tier they are in, which is why I 100% agree that BG matchmaking should be similar to AW matchmaking which goes by tier and everyone in that tier is eligible to face each other with pi and prestige having no account into it.
The main difference is that AW matchmaking doesn't reset everyone to the same starting point every season. They have done that in the past and the result was way worse that what we see in BG at starts of new seasons.
If they come up with a better system, it will work itself out much like it did in AW. AW alliance gets into a groove on where they belong, heavily based on strength of rosters and fight others in that tier.
Where did I say that AW matchmaking is based off of PI or Prestige. I just said that they match you against an even strength alliance. BGs does use different criteria but in general also matches you against an evenly matched opponent. it's not a matchmaking issue, it's a rewards issue. If you are a Paragon and want to match against Uncollected accounts just because you are both in Bronze, you come across as a bit of a bully. I want the best rewards to go to the best accounts but AW is a great example where that can happen without requiring the need for strong players to ever face weak ones.
Define even strength. If you think that’s war rating then BG’s has a matchmaking problem since it does not rely on BG rating. If you think that’s alliance rating or prestige then you are wrong in understanding how matchmaking works in AW. This is for sure a matchmaking problem. What you are advocating is for a tier based system where lower accounts are fighting for far lower rewards than higher accounts. And that would again penalize the highly skilled lower accounts.
Even strength is when given a sufficient sample size you should be able to win about 50% of your matches. War Rating is an excellent example of this can work as success increases your war rating and failures decrease it. War Rating also takes in consideration whether or not the may have given you too easy or too difficult of a matchup. Prestige, TBH, etc. is bad for War because those metrics can easily fail to represent the actual participants particularly when Alliances don't have 30 members or don't run 3 Battlegroups. War Rating has proven to be the only solution there. I'm not saying altering BG matchmaking isn't a possible solution to the greater problem, it can be. I'm just saying that if there are two groups of players who are both winning half of their matches and subsequently getting the same rewards, yet one of those groups would win 90% of their matches if they played each other, then the issue is not with matchmaking, it's with rewards structure. I don't think it's healthy though for the game mode for the Uncollected players to "wait their turn" in the Victory Track for better players to move up but that's what happens if you put every summoner in Bronze and tell them to figure it out at the start of each season. Everyone should feel like they have a chance to win every time they queue for a match.
@kabam Jax Any chance we can get the topic of this thread forwarded to the devs? You will see that although there are different overall opinions on how matchmaking should be, there is an overwhelming perception that the current setup is undeniably rewarding players for not progressing, avoiding rankups, not adding sig, not using relics (avoiding adding pi or prestige to try to avoid non stop death fights every tier starting in bronze 3).
I strongly believe this is a complete 180 swap from every other aspect of the game and is extremely counter productive to the overall product, which I would assume will eventually show in financials (why are people going to whale out to advance their champs when lower rosters are rewarded with easier path to GC in BG?)
I'm still not personally too bitter about the meta, but it has made me rethink the banning subsequent RNG based draft.
I have a pretty diverse set of attackers at high ranks, but as others have pointed out, the true all-stars for this meta are immediately banned by your opponent if they don't have the same champ (I'm looking at you Galan).
To my point though, I just looked at my deck, and I have 17 attackers I can use. That said, many of them are situational, like Venompool against tech, Magneto against metal, Archangel against anyone who can feel get his toxin, etc. My point is, there are only a handful of champs that can truly be viable options against any defender, and when they get banned, now the mode is largely RNG based.
It wasn't until this meta, but it's kinda made me wish they would just let you draft from your full deck. Keep bans if you want to.
To be specific, you get matched with someone, go through their deck and place your three bans. After that though, I can pick the 7 champs I want from what remains after bans. The opponent and I don't see each others draft until we've both selected.
Maybe it's a stupid idea. Like I said, I never felt that way until this meta that is very niche in the attackers you can use.
I think your suggestion takes away exactly what is special about the game mode. In every mode (other than maybe Arena which is already easy enough) you get to pick the exact champion you want. This is the mode where you have to understand what all your champions can do and be far more strategic about what goes into your deck, who you actually choose, and how you deploy them in order to overcome that RNG aspect. If we got to just pick exactly who we wanted, every match would ultimately start to feel the same and the mode would be far more stale.
I agree with that sentiment. I'm not even totally sold on it myself. Maybe just expanding the deck from 30 to 40 would make me feel better. Or expanding the draft from 7 to 9.
Just something to minimize the effects RNG has on who you ultimately get to draft.
There's just nothing worse that seeing your opponent draft Korg in his first pick and thinking to yourself "I've got Falcon and Namor, it'll be fine", then those champs never appear in your draft.
So...let us take advantage of weaker Players or we won't pay? Right.
. What do you mean take advantage of weaker players? Battlegrounds is supposed to be a competitive mode. Currently it isn’t, since smaller accounts are avoiding competition, yet thay claim better rewards than their competitors. Is that fair? In a competitive mode anyone should face anyone within same tier or similar mode rating. As a player with 9 r4s I should be able to match players with no r4s at all, or full r4 decks, since we are at the same tier and fighting over the same rewards. Same thing is happening at AW but also at Gladiator Circuit. Anyone can match anyone. I don’t know who’s call was Prestige matchmaking at VT to solve sandbagging problem, but this person needs to immediately get fired. The company should know from their previous AW experience, that Prestige matchmaking is the worst route to go down with. Prestige matchmaking eliminates the core purpose of the game, which is progression, since progressing your account won’t help you surpass and beat the competition. Why then rank up champs, if it’s not going to help at BGs, since higher prestige is going to lure you more stacked accounts, and mainly more experienced players?
They should just have different tiers of battlegrounds and completely randomize the matchmaking. Anyone can join any level they want, but the lower tiers will have lower rewards. If proven players want to enter the highest tier to get the best rewards, they're welcome to, but they'll have to beat the best accounts in the game.
If people are concerned about whales joining lower tiers, then consider making it like incursions where once you hit a certain number of 5*/6* (or eventually 7*) champs, you're not eligible to join the lowest tiers.
So...let us take advantage of weaker Players or we won't pay? Right.
Not what I'm saying at all, as I don't spend much on this game to begin with. But I am saying that those who spend the most in the game do it to gain a competitive advantage which is usually gained in being stronger than others. BG current matchmaking gives advantages to weaker players so why would the higher players spend?
It's simple economics, but what do I know about economics, I only have a doctorate in business administration.
It's got nothing to do with economics. It has to do with appropriate levels of challenge for where a Player is at. You look at their Accounts and assume they're getting easier Matches because they're being Matched with easier opponents FOR YOU. You don't take into account their own ability to work where they're at, with what they have. You only make the assertion the Matches would be easier for you, with your own skill set, if you were in their position. That's not accurate. Rewards structure is one thing. That may be cause to look at, although everyone is playing for the same currency, save for Ranking. The Matches are another subject. Everyone is personally offended because people are being challenged based on their own abilities, which is limited to what they're working with, regardless of what Jerry Longtimer can do with an Alt that isn't as developed as their Main. There's a whole lack of perspective going on, and the end result is people who have no business coming up against others who are vastly underdeveloped compared to themselves.
It's got nothing to do with economics. It has to do with appropriate levels of challenge for where a Player is at. You look at their Accounts and assume they're getting easier Matches because they're being Matched with easier opponents FOR YOU. You don't take into account their own ability to work where they're at, with what they have. You only make the assertion the Matches would be easier for you, with your own skill set, if you were in their position. That's not accurate. Rewards structure is one thing. That may be cause to look at, although everyone is playing for the same currency, save for Ranking. The Matches are another subject. Everyone is personally offended because people are being challenged based on their own abilities, which is limited to what they're working with, regardless of what Jerry Longtimer can do with an Alt that isn't as developed as their Main. There's a whole lack of perspective going on, and the end result is people who have no business coming up against others who are vastly underdeveloped compared to themselves.
You kind of have a point, in that Paragon level skill w/ Uncollected Roster vs low skill w/ Uncollected Roster would curbstomp, but Low Skill w/ Uncollected Roster v Low Skill w/ Uncollected Roster should theoretically be equivalent to Paragon Skill w/ Paragon Roster v Paragon Skill w/ Paragon Roster.
But you are also incorrect at the same time, as there is still a difference in the level of competition.
The lower level players at the beginning of the season bragged about being able to win with just 15k points scored. Paragon level players facing Paragon level competition have rarely been able to win with just 15k points.
Lower skilled / smaller roster players facing lower skilled / smaller roster players, typically have to put up less points to win a match since there should be more health loss, and slower play (slower play can result simply by not doing intercepts, which lower skilled players can't do consistently).
Higher skilled / bigger roster play typically requires a certain style of play - keeping your health as close to 100%, and finishing the fights quickly. The difference of KO'ing a champion by a few seconds matters more in higher level play than in lower level play.
Based on how narrow victory vs defeat can be at Paragon level, means that it is harder to string together consecutive victories at the Paragon level compared to low level.
Comments
Again, I can make no guarantees this will work. However, we have lots of anecdotal evidence of very weak rosters getting very good match ups, so not all weak rosters are getting bad match ups. Changing *something* could help. Changing nothing is likely to keep things as they are. If things as they are are not good for you, shaking things up could make things better. They probably can't make things worse.
Till now it's mostly come down to some selection badluck and my own bad decisions.
Sure, accounts are stacked and I do have opponents with 15-15.5k pi but it's fine, there's no ideal solution to matchmaking
Any way you look at it, a game mode that incentivizes NOT ranking or opening relics/crystals is just awful.
Even though i agree with the points the OP makes, i cannot help but point out how idiotic and stupid of making matchmaking "fair" by allowing tb or uncollected or cavaliers fight against Paragons, you know what that does? makes it practically whale wars where the game mode is only enjoyed by a select few aka so called highly praised alliance wars. In the quest of fairness for the top 5% the OP asks to take away the chance for players of lower progression or lower spending to play and enjoy the gamemode.
There have been so many times, so so many times that i instantly quit the match because i matched against someone with 10-15 ranks 4 with me having no rank 4s at all. It feels unfair and since you only get points for the solo and alliance events when you complete a match in BGs you have to sit there and watch as they destroy your 5 star defender with a rank 4 champ over and over again. You know how frustrating that is? matching against someone you know you almost have no chance against? even if i "outdraft" them, there defenders have more health and than mine do.
If this becomes the norm, matching against paragons, then i as a part of 95% of the player base would just have to leave the game mode much like i have left alliance wars for the so called mighty 5% to cruise through and crush any from the remaining 95% that still choose to play the game mode.
Then I opened two 6-star crystals - one new, and one dupe.
I also used 10 5-star sig stones that were going to expire.
Cut to today: Matched up against 5 accounts that had pretty much entirely 6R3/6R4 in their deck. I also got matched against 1 account that was mostly 5-stars in their deck.
Sure, the difference could be that I went up a Victory Track tier, and so there are less possible players to be matchup against. But that fear of opening crystals, and adding sigs to characters, feels irrational but also maybe logical?
The matchmaking tries to mimic AW to a degree... having stacked rosters face stacked rosters similar to how similar ranked alliance are matched in war... but the big difference is that in AW... those stacked alliances in Tier 1 wars / Masters are getting way better rewards than those in Silver. Its litteraly a different game being played with different nodes, globals, bans etc.
but in BG... we are all the same. there is no "well you are stacked... we'll put you against other stacked players, but will compete for higher rewards" like might e done if Paragon players started in say Platinum or Diamond tier... but if we all start in bronze... and are all playing for a small pile of artifacts... then we should all have an equal chance of matching up.
Kabam should realize Prestige matchmaking on a shared pool of rewards is unfair, no matter how you twist it.
Battlegrounds matchmaking should be totally random, within the same Victory Track bracket (gold1 vs gold1 etc.).
A stacked Paragon account should be able to face and demolish a newly Uncollected player, as long as they are at the same bracket, and send the UC player to story questing, where he should be, instead of overachieving rewards due to a broken matchmaking, on a competitive mode.
It’s annoying seeing UC players bragging for their achievement on reaching GC, while there are many Paragons still sweating each other at VT.
Matchmaking is worse than even sandbagging.
Kabam tried to fast patch a problem, by creating a bigger one.
Matchmaking should be RANDOM, anything else is unfair.
I have a pretty diverse set of attackers at high ranks, but as others have pointed out, the true all-stars for this meta are immediately banned by your opponent if they don't have the same champ (I'm looking at you Galan).
To my point though, I just looked at my deck, and I have 17 attackers I can use. That said, many of them are situational, like Venompool against tech, Magneto against metal, Archangel against anyone who can feel get his toxin, etc. My point is, there are only a handful of champs that can truly be viable options against any defender, and when they get banned, now the mode is largely RNG based.
It wasn't until this meta, but it's kinda made me wish they would just let you draft from your full deck. Keep bans if you want to.
To be specific, you get matched with someone, go through their deck and place your three bans. After that though, I can pick the 7 champs I want from what remains after bans. The opponent and I don't see each others draft until we've both selected.
Maybe it's a stupid idea. Like I said, I never felt that way until this meta that is very niche in the attackers you can use.
How is it "fair" that people who put in effort or spend only get matched in harder matchups with those who also put in more effort tor money while weaker players who put in less effort and money get an easy path to GC?
Pi and prestige have absolutely nothing to do with aw matchmaking, it all has to do with what tier they are in, which is why I 100% agree that BG matchmaking should be similar to AW matchmaking which goes by tier and everyone in that tier is eligible to face each other with pi and prestige having no account into it.
The main difference is that AW matchmaking doesn't reset everyone to the same starting point every season. They have done that in the past and the result was way worse that what we see in BG at starts of new seasons.
If they come up with a better system, it will work itself out much like it did in AW. AW alliance gets into a groove on where they belong, heavily based on strength of rosters and fight others in that tier.
Same happens at AW. As long as you have similar rating you are eligible to match a very weaker or a very stronger opponent, in terms of Prestige or Total Base Hero Rating.
Kabam had tried Prestige matchmaking at AW and it failed loudly, creating a massive backlash from stronger allies when they realized that weaker allies were placing higher than them while they shouldn’t.
BGs matchmaking should be totally random, not only at GC but VT too.
Kick start on different VT brackets, could solve any mismatching issues at the season start.
My main 3,5mil 15,5k Prestige account is still at gold3, sweating over other Paragon stacked accounts, while my mini 600k Cavalier account is at Gladiator Circuit from the very first days, waiting already for the ranked rewards, which I doubt my main this season will get.
This speaks volumes of how “Fair” prestige matchmaking is, and exposes the whole situation.
On a progression based game, progression is penalised.
I don’t rank up high prestige champs to r4, not using signature stones on my existing r4s neither open or upgrade relics.
I also ignore any 6* signature offer or any offer that would raise my prestige.
Is that the way Kabam wants us to play the game?
I doubt it. It is opposing to their business model of selling progression through unit or $ offers.
Kabam are you really aware of what’s happening right now at your most important mode, Battlegrounds?
This is serious @Kabam Miike
The company is losing money and players are losing patience 😠
Can that 20 million alliance beat us because we put in less effort than them or because they are just amazing? Absolutely they can. Just like a weaker player can heat a much stronger players if they put in the effort, have stronger game/champ knowledge, etc.
If you think that’s war rating then BG’s has a matchmaking problem since it does not rely on BG rating.
If you think that’s alliance rating or prestige then you are wrong in understanding how matchmaking works in AW.
This is for sure a matchmaking problem. What you are advocating is for a tier based system where lower accounts are fighting for far lower rewards than higher accounts. And that would again penalize the highly skilled lower accounts.
Any chance we can get the topic of this thread forwarded to the devs? You will see that although there are different overall opinions on how matchmaking should be, there is an overwhelming perception that the current setup is undeniably rewarding players for not progressing, avoiding rankups, not adding sig, not using relics (avoiding adding pi or prestige to try to avoid non stop death fights every tier starting in bronze 3).
I strongly believe this is a complete 180 swap from every other aspect of the game and is extremely counter productive to the overall product, which I would assume will eventually show in financials (why are people going to whale out to advance their champs when lower rosters are rewarded with easier path to GC in BG?)
Just something to minimize the effects RNG has on who you ultimately get to draft.
There's just nothing worse that seeing your opponent draft Korg in his first pick and thinking to yourself "I've got Falcon and Namor, it'll be fine", then those champs never appear in your draft.
What do you mean take advantage of weaker players?
Battlegrounds is supposed to be a competitive mode.
Currently it isn’t, since smaller accounts are avoiding competition, yet thay claim better rewards than their competitors.
Is that fair?
In a competitive mode anyone should face anyone within same tier or similar mode rating.
As a player with 9 r4s I should be able to match players with no r4s at all, or full r4 decks, since we are at the same tier and fighting over the same rewards.
Same thing is happening at AW but also at Gladiator Circuit.
Anyone can match anyone.
I don’t know who’s call was Prestige matchmaking at VT to solve sandbagging problem, but this person needs to immediately get fired.
The company should know from their previous AW experience, that Prestige matchmaking is the worst route to go down with.
Prestige matchmaking eliminates the core purpose of the game, which is progression, since progressing your account won’t help you surpass and beat the competition.
Why then rank up champs, if it’s not going to help at BGs, since higher prestige is going to lure you more stacked accounts, and mainly more experienced players?
If people are concerned about whales joining lower tiers, then consider making it like incursions where once you hit a certain number of 5*/6* (or eventually 7*) champs, you're not eligible to join the lowest tiers.
It's simple economics, but what do I know about economics, I only have a doctorate in business administration.
You look at their Accounts and assume they're getting easier Matches because they're being Matched with easier opponents FOR YOU. You don't take into account their own ability to work where they're at, with what they have. You only make the assertion the Matches would be easier for you, with your own skill set, if you were in their position.
That's not accurate. Rewards structure is one thing. That may be cause to look at, although everyone is playing for the same currency, save for Ranking.
The Matches are another subject. Everyone is personally offended because people are being challenged based on their own abilities, which is limited to what they're working with, regardless of what Jerry Longtimer can do with an Alt that isn't as developed as their Main.
There's a whole lack of perspective going on, and the end result is people who have no business coming up against others who are vastly underdeveloped compared to themselves.
But you are also incorrect at the same time, as there is still a difference in the level of competition.
The lower level players at the beginning of the season bragged about being able to win with just 15k points scored. Paragon level players facing Paragon level competition have rarely been able to win with just 15k points.
Lower skilled / smaller roster players facing lower skilled / smaller roster players, typically have to put up less points to win a match since there should be more health loss, and slower play (slower play can result simply by not doing intercepts, which lower skilled players can't do consistently).
Higher skilled / bigger roster play typically requires a certain style of play - keeping your health as close to 100%, and finishing the fights quickly. The difference of KO'ing a champion by a few seconds matters more in higher level play than in lower level play.
Based on how narrow victory vs defeat can be at Paragon level, means that it is harder to string together consecutive victories at the Paragon level compared to low level.