For the record, I'm debating logic. I'm not canvassing for any changes, or the absence thereof. I'm simply stating there's a contradiction. On one hand, people are saying Roster shouldn't factor in. On the other, they're saying they're more deserving because their Roster is larger, and lower Accounts never come up against them. If you are to make the assertion that Roster shouldn't matter, then you need to be willing to swallow the pill that you're just not advancing your own Account with the Roster you have.
The only people who say that rosters shouldn't matter and only thing that should matter are those with weak rosters.
Actually, that's been the number one argument to using Prestige, so I'm addressing what's been mentioned countless times in these discussions.
Seriously!! People are saying roster shouldn’t matter in matchmaking. You are actually the one arguing that roster should matter in matchmaking. If it’s really a question of skill then why do you think kabam got rid of the ability to use 4* deck and match against other people with 4* decks?
I actually outlined the contradiction with people saying Roster shouldn't matter, and yet it matters to them when it supports their argument. I also clarified that I'm having a discussion on the logic of it and not saying things should or shouldn't either way. Also, if you're under the impression people were dumbing down their Roster for a good 'ol bit of fun and not to take advantage of others, then I don't know what to say to that. People will use any plausible but untrue justification to have the ability to manipulate an outcome.
Roster should not matter in matchmaking. Roster should matter in your placement (you get better roster - you will be placed higher than somebody with worse roster and assuming same skills).
For the record, I believe roster should matter in BG in one, and only one way: in terms of assisting you in winning fights.
We should be ranking champs that will be helpful to us, and we should be trying to chase champions that would be helpful to us, and we should get some sort of advantage for putting in the effort to build a strong roster and construct a strong deck from that roster. However, that advantage should exist solely in combat. It should not influence who you fight, or more importantly who you don't fight.
You should not have to face players that are vastly stronger than you when you first start out. It is perfectly fine for players of equal strength roster to be matched against each other when we know nothing else about them. However, once they start winning and losing, roster should fade away and we should allow players to rise or fall to their ability to win. Weaker roster players should not *initially* face stronger roster players, but once they start winning they *should* have to face them if they intend to *overtake* them.
A good Cav should be able to beat a weak TB. But that should happen by allowing the strong Cav to *face* the weak TB and beat them in a BG match. Good Cavs should not be able to get better rewards than weak TBs by only beating other Cavs and never facing weak TBs to prove they are weak TBs by actually winning against them.
Even if we adopt a placement scheme where higher progress players (who presumably have stronger rosters in general) start at higher tracks, that influence should happen only once. Once players are placed, their roster should not determine who they face. Winners should face winners, and losers should face losers. Winners should not be allowed to beat up losers just because they happen to have the same prestige. And conversely losers should not be forced to face winners over and over again just because they happen to have the same prestige.
Good Cavs should move up and weak TBs should move down, but that should happen when they eventually face each other. Regardless of roster strength.
Comments
We should be ranking champs that will be helpful to us, and we should be trying to chase champions that would be helpful to us, and we should get some sort of advantage for putting in the effort to build a strong roster and construct a strong deck from that roster. However, that advantage should exist solely in combat. It should not influence who you fight, or more importantly who you don't fight.
You should not have to face players that are vastly stronger than you when you first start out. It is perfectly fine for players of equal strength roster to be matched against each other when we know nothing else about them.
However, once they start winning and losing, roster should fade away and we should allow players to rise or fall to their ability to win. Weaker roster players should not *initially* face stronger roster players, but once they start winning they *should* have to face them if they intend to *overtake* them.
A good Cav should be able to beat a weak TB. But that should happen by allowing the strong Cav to *face* the weak TB and beat them in a BG match. Good Cavs should not be able to get better rewards than weak TBs by only beating other Cavs and never facing weak TBs to prove they are weak TBs by actually winning against them.
Even if we adopt a placement scheme where higher progress players (who presumably have stronger rosters in general) start at higher tracks, that influence should happen only once. Once players are placed, their roster should not determine who they face. Winners should face winners, and losers should face losers. Winners should not be allowed to beat up losers just because they happen to have the same prestige. And conversely losers should not be forced to face winners over and over again just because they happen to have the same prestige.
Good Cavs should move up and weak TBs should move down, but that should happen when they eventually face each other. Regardless of roster strength.