**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
However, your in the second and smaller group. The group that is at the top, the group that if they want to stay at the top have to keep pushing prestige. Your likely not the bottom of an invisible prestige bracket for matchups as DNA has discussed most likely but you are more likely at the top of that invisible prestige bracket meaning, your not like many other Paragon who are going against players like you while they may have only 3 or 4 decent r4s.
Those players aren't going to catch you in roster strength, have small chance in beating you, so why would they push prestige to try and keep fighting players like you in ever fight starting in bronze?
I just think it's incredibly sad to try to manipulate matching in your favor regardless of what the reason is.
As far as manipulating matchmaking, your more than welcome to have you own opinion but I do NOT see avoiding increasing my prestige, which does literally no game benefit than competive AQ (which I don't do) as manipulating matchmaking.
I've never ever pushed prestige and never done a single prestige rankups in 7 years. Manipulating matchmaking is the sandbagging and stuff like that, which caused the current issue. I'm not changing my roster, I'm still doing rankups and I'm not lowering my roster or prestige so on no way should this be considered "roster manipulation" for BG.
I will completely disagree that avoiding prestige rankups is anything close to roster manipulation. That's like saying people who ranked up silver surfer and Thor rags were manipulating their roster to get higher AQ points.
Prestige matchmaking manipulates matching, in favour of small accounts.
They are avoiding the competition. That’s an undeniable FACT.
No one asked for a favouring matchmaking.
We are asking for RANDOM matchmaking.
Zero parameters, except your VT bracket.
Keep for maximum 3-5 first tiers of VT, Prestige matchmaking to avoid big miss matches and after that full random.
Which to be honest, even that is a lot.
You want the rewards? Fight the competition who also fights for them.
Now Kabam allows lower new accounts to scoop all VT rewards and get GC ranked rewards.
Meanwhile, a lot of Paragon accounts got stuck at VT brackets.
Do anyone believes that if they had match these low accounts, they wouldn’t had won easily?
Why then all these low accounts are placing higher?
A smaller Account would not win against a Paragon. Groundbreaking.
What people keep avoiding is why they're not winning their own Matches. That point is avoided because they'd rather take out a bunch of much smaller Accounts than face ones in their own vicinity.
Honestly, I never suggested Prestige in BGs. All I said was the manipulation needs to be addressed. I'm still going to point out that people are being blamed for winning without others taking responsibility for their own results.
I don't, and if I'm trash I don't care it's just a game. Some of you take this game way too seriously lmao I didn't care about sandbagging, I don't care about this either, I just play the game. I sure as hell don't go telling people to stop complaining about game issues though.
I don't need to read anything else, you're a hypocrite lol.
But I am on each of these threads I see as those who kept throwing temper tantrums about sandbagging (which again for the record I never agreed with) is what led to the change that cause the current issue that is negatively effecting the stronger accounts while lower accounts get smoother path to better rewards without facing the higher tiers opponents.
I will continue to comment on these threads as long as this is an issue. This might not be resolved as quick as the fix for sandbagging (which led to this disaster of a system) but eventually they will realize this is exact mistake they made when they did prestige AW matchmaking. I want to ensure they continue to hear the issues in the meantime.
Before referring to my previous posts, you really should go back and reread as you keep stating incorrect information that I never said. I'm not sure if your a very poor reader or just a selectively poor memory, but if your going to try and blast people with what you claim they have said, at least be correct on what your claiming they said.
And now you're throwing temper tantrums too. The tables have turned, have fun throwing temper tantrums because you have to face Paragons only now!
Like I said, I don't need to go back to read anything cause I saw you telling people to stop posting threads multiple times. It doesn't matter if the reason was because there were too many threads or whatever lol keep trying to deflect, very sad attempts.
No point on going back and forth with you, as really seems like you got bigger issues going on with such levels of hostility.
Personally, I think the people you are attempting to represent would not appreciate your support in this situation, but that's their problem to solve.
The people who are defending it instead have no idea what the consequences would be if Kabam accepted their arguments. It almost makes me hope they will.
My Cav alt was fortunate enough to pull Hulkling. He's almost an automatic win in the lower ranks. Is that fair? Maybe there should be a Hulkling division of BG.
No two people are exactly equally strong. In literally *every* Battlegrounds match up, *someone* has an advantage. In my experience, more than half of all match ups end up moderately to significantly unbalanced. Someone clearly has the stronger roster. Someone clearly has greater experience (you can tell just by watching them draft whether they know what they are doing, whether they understand how the champions work).
"Fair" does not mean "equal." If it did, no competition would ever be fair. All competitions place *boundaries* around the competition that enclose the boundaries of fairness. You must operate within those boundaries to be a fair competitor. But within those boundaries, advantages and disadvantages are fair.
How you choose those boundaries determines whether anyone else wants to play your game. If your definition of "fair" is "higher roster is unfair, higher skill level is unfair, higher experience is unfair, higher knowledge base is unfair" then what is the competition even for? Just flip a coin to determine the winner. That's the ultimate fairness. Everyone has a 50% chance to win.
Except that's not what competitions are about. All competitors know this. If someone knows more than you and wins, they won fairly on the basis of their superior knowledge. If someone has practiced a fight more often than you and wins, they won fairly on the basis of their superior experience.
If we are going to spoon feed players "equal" matches, they are not competing anymore. Well, they might be competing with those individual hand-picked opponents, but they aren't competing with me, nor anyone else outside of that pool of players. And if that pool of players all playing with each other and no one else is just a bunch of Uncollected players, they do not deserve anything other than UC-tier rewards for their efforts.
If it is fair for UC players to beat up UC players and get the same *or superior* rewards as Paragon players, why isn't if fair for UC players completing UC tier EQ to get Paragon-tier rewards. After all, UC beating UC tier content is just as hard as Paragon beating Paragon-tier content, right? In fact, I suppose they should get more rewards, because UC beating UC tier is harder than a Paragon beating TB tier.
Again, I don't personally want this. But the logical conclusion of your version of "fairness" (and my keyboard doesn't contain enough quotes for that) is UC fights UC, and gets UC rewards *only*. Cav fights Cav, and gets Cav rewards *only*. TBs fight TBs, but they get the TB rewards. Paragons fight Paragons, but they get the Paragon rewards.
Maybe if we *threaten* the UCs, Cavs, and TBs with this, they will help us stamp out this nonsense.
However, there is a distinct difference between someone who has 5....6....7 years of experience in the game, and creates an Alt. They can't speak to how easy it is for people at that level. A Paragon that makes an Alt is not the same statement for a Cav that is genuinely at the Cav level, or further down. That's more than just the average variation of skillsets at that level. That's my point.
I've been here for 7 years. I could go back and start an Account (which I'm not, personal preference), and advance marvelously given my current knowledge and experience. I can't speak for how easy it is for Players at that level because I'm not a Player at that level. I'm an experienced Player with an Account at that level.
Let's take the opposite. Create a game that makes the highest and largest hurdles in the beginning, and accelerates growth as you go up. What do you have? I've described it before as a perpetual motion machine, and that's exactly what it is. The more momentum it gains, the more momentum it generates.
Why is this damaging? It creates a vacuum. People may manage to grow past a certain point in the beginning, but they will never progress anywhere significant because those further ahead are continuing to grow faster and faster. It's impossible to get past a certain point. The system doesn't allow it.
Now, it's not that cut-and-dry in this game, and I agree that too much Rewards at the wrong stage is more damaging than beneficial. I would be a fool to argue the contrary. In terms of progress models, the top is supposed to progress slower, not faster.
No, if anything that just means sandbagging was that much of an issue for the majority of the playerbase, hence so many different people were making threads about it and since you claim there's been less than 5 complaints about BGs matchmaking this past month that means it's more of a you problem, a skill one perhaps? Lol.
Do I feel that Players with more experience should advance faster in BGs? Not at the expense of overpowering people who don't stand a chance to win. That's the whole issue I've maintained. Several suggestions have been made to balance this, and I'm all ears. My question is, why does one principle override the other? Why can't both be valid? That's the issue I see with these discussions. One side versus the other. Both are valid concerns to me. I just don't appreciate watching people be raked over the coals for playing their best in the system as it is. They're being accused of stealing Rewards, and gaining a manipulated advantage, and that's not how we've arrived here.
We've arrived here because people have taken competitiveness to such an extreme that they manipulated the Matchmaking into easier Matches. And here we are with people arguing that the Rewards justify allowing that through the system itself.
That's easier.
That comparison does not work here. In Diablo, and in the typical MMO, and even here, *progress* is managed that way. The higher you go, the harder it is to get higher. But *rewards* are not. In no game do you get the best rewards at the beginning, and worse rewards at the end. Nobody gets the top raid gear for killing a million rats in World of Warcraft, even if killing a million rats is just as hard for a new player as defeating the top raid boss is for veteran players. It literally doesn't matter.Although we call moving through the tracks "progress" that's not really the same thing. Here, track progress is really just unlocking more rewards. It is no more progress than getting tomorrows rewards in the calendar is progress. It isn't game account progress. Stronger roster accounts get to do higher tier AQ maps and as a result get more rewards. This is entirely non-controversial. Stronger roster accounts generally win more wars and end up in higher war tiers, where they match against stronger opponents but also get more season points. This is also considered entirely normal. But when Paragon accounts have to fight the equivalent of tier 1 battleground matches and end up with Bronze caliber season rewards, and that isn't because of a catastrophic failure of participation or lack of skill, that's not the same thing as a progress ladder effect.
I believe any professional game designer would be embarrassed to claim before an audience of their peers that their veteran players were falling behind their lower progress players in a straight up competitive game mode because that's how game progress worked in their game. That's just not supposed to happen. And I dare any professional game designer of any game to claim it should.
I made it GC on the final day and 5 wins cost me a fortune in those shield things.
My alt and my "vast experience after 7 years" got nowhere because having 8 good champs with three 6r3, and the rest of the account is a few 4r5 and a bunch of unleveled 5 and 6 stars means I got roasted in every draft.
Would've been a good sandbaggers deck though.