I'm not opposed to that. I just don't want the newest Players in the competition being trampled in the first few Brackets. That's my concern. There's too much of a gap for it to even be considered fair, regardless of the status quo. People are having issues as a Paragon coming up against more advanced Paragons and justifying letting them match with UC Players in the same breath. If someone fights their way up and punches to their own ceiling, that's one thing. Making them stonewall at the beginning is another. I'd rather them limit access to BGs than see that happen for people. They'd get upset for a time, and they'd get over it. Better that than laughing at their struggles because they're fuel for others in Bronze 3
Why do the newest players deserve to advance easier than the longest and best players in the game? Why should they think that they deserve to compete in a mode that EVERYONE is in the same pool and fighting for the same rewards?
Advance faster. The first 2 or 3 Brackets is what I'm talking about and your argument is they're advancing faster because they would have a fair chance at starting out? No offense, but that's a sad argument. They're advancing period. Considering they're not going to get anywhere after that, that's not advancing faster than anyone. That's having SOME reason to play. I find it completely selfish that people are butthut about even Matches when they can't even stand to fight their own. That's neither here nor there. The fact that people who are advancing in the competition are crying about some new Players getting a few Shards is pathetic.
That's not what it's about. It's about not letting people who vastly overpower them trample them at the gate. If you're offended by that, then that's sad.
I'm going to start out giving you credit where it's due. Despite a significant amount of floundering on how match making could be resolved, you have at least stayed consistent in one fundamental area, which is you want larger accounts beating up on smaller accounts.
Let's start with that...
I know you've said the sports analogies don't really hit the mark for you, but they are the most applicable analogy to be made.
There's is no sporting event, in the world, where people are handicapped when competing for the same rewards.
Some have suggested "kick starting" folks. I wouldn't personally advocate for that, but there is an associative logic to it though in NASCAR and Indy racing. Someone starts in first and someone starts last. That's determined before every race (not every season) through a qualifying session. Come race day though, everyone still competes against everyone else, and odds are, the faster car is gonna win. What that means though, is if I qualify poorly and and start near the bottom, you're still gonna face me. It doesn't solve your issue.
Major sport analogies, like football, baseball, and basketball have been talked to death, so I'm going to skip them.
The new analogy I'm going to use here is boxing. In that, everyone fights in a weight class. No questions, end of story. Sure everyone gets a prize, but the notable prize is that heavyweight champ.
Whether you can admit it or not, this is the system you want. Rewards would have to be adjusted (decreased) for the lower weight classes, but you get the piece of mind of knowing you're not gonna be knocked out repeatedly by a guy that outweighs you by 80lbs. It will inevitably lead to complaints from those lower weight classes, and the solution to that is to let people decide on their own what weight class they want to fight in (but you can't go below your class). So now if a light weight fighter wants a chance at heavy weight rewards, he can have it, but he has to know he's probably fighting all heavy weights. Conversely, a heavy weight cannon decide to fight in a light weight class. Each individual makes that choice at the start of the season...no competing in multiple classes, and no going back until the start of the next season.
Essentially, now each summoner decides the rewards they want to compete for. They can try heavyweight, likely getting much less from a better pot, or they can stay in their weight class, likely getting more of a worse pot.
That's the end of my analogies, but now I'm going to reiterate a few key components that you've continued to overlook.
1) I am not advocating for beating up lower accounts. I am advocating for FAIR competition, which means if we're competing for the same rewards, we're subject to fighting one another. No one gets an easier path than others, not even for a short period of time. I think most of the top accounts agree here....they want fairness, not punching bags.
2) This is all about rewards. I say that because you've gone on record stating you don't care. I struggle to believe that you honestly mean that, but if you do, I can guarantee that you're alone in that view point. This is absolutely all about rewards, because they are currently some of the best in the game, and that's WHY we play the game...get rewards, get better. No one is playing with 2*r1 champs for years on end simply because they like it.
3) This solution completely addresses sandbagging. That needs to be pointed out, cause you continue to bring up that sandbagging is how we got here. You're not wrong, but it's a dead topic, because it's been resolved, albeit in a poor design, which is what we're talking about fixing now.
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
In every single competitive sport in the world that has legitimate fan bases there are rules to make thing’s competitive and hence somewhat fair. We don’t have heavyweight male champions fighting bantamweight female fighters. We don’t have little league teams going against major league teams. We don’t have junior varsity football teams going against nfl teams. All of you guys with whale accounts defending your right to have easy fights against low level guys should be ashamed and have a little more dignity than that. Any defending of the way the matchups are is ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see it’s lopsided. Thats the facts and any further argument is flat out lying to justify your easy wins. BTW i win most of my fights so not sour grapes. Just facts
In all those examples, they also don't go for the same rewards which is the issue many of us have. Lower accounts are able to get all victory track rewards and even GC rank rewards without having to face any of the stronger accounts that in many cases are getting worse rewards because of far harder matches.
The little league team doesn't face professional major league teams, your right, but they also don't advance to the playoffs and compete for the world series title after facing only little league teams, which is what is currently happening in BG matchmaking.
I don't think any of us larger accounts are saying we want to face the lower accounts. We are saying they shouldn't have a streamline easy path to getting the same or better rewards than stronger accounts who they don't have to face.
In every single competitive sport in the world that has legitimate fan bases there are rules to make thing’s competitive and hence somewhat fair. We don’t have heavyweight male champions fighting bantamweight female fighters. We don’t have little league teams going against major league teams. We don’t have junior varsity football teams going against nfl teams. All of you guys with whale accounts defending your right to have easy fights against low level guys should be ashamed and have a little more dignity than that. Any defending of the way the matchups are is ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see it’s lopsided. Thats the facts and any further argument is flat out lying to justify your easy wins. BTW i win most of my fights so not sour grapes. Just facts
In all those examples, they also don't go for the same rewards which is the issue many of us have. Lower accounts are able to get all victory track rewards and even GC rank rewards without having to face any of the stronger accounts that in many cases are getting worse rewards because of far harder matches.
The little league team doesn't face professional major league teams, your right, but they also don't advance to the playoffs and compete for the world series title after facing only little league teams, which is what is currently happening in BG matchmaking.
I don't think any of us larger accounts are saying we want to face the lower accounts. We are saying they shouldn't have a streamline easy path to getting the same or better rewards than stronger accounts who they don't have to face.
Better Rewards in Bronze and Silver? That's what we're talking about. Giving people a chance to start out without getting unreasonably overpowered.
I'm not opposed to that. I just don't want the newest Players in the competition being trampled in the first few Brackets. That's my concern. There's too much of a gap for it to even be considered fair, regardless of the status quo. People are having issues as a Paragon coming up against more advanced Paragons and justifying letting them match with UC Players in the same breath. If someone fights their way up and punches to their own ceiling, that's one thing. Making them stonewall at the beginning is another. I'd rather them limit access to BGs than see that happen for people. They'd get upset for a time, and they'd get over it. Better that than laughing at their struggles because they're fuel for others in Bronze 3
Why do the newest players deserve to advance easier than the longest and best players in the game? Why should they think that they deserve to compete in a mode that EVERYONE is in the same pool and fighting for the same rewards?
Advance faster. The first 2 or 3 Brackets is what I'm talking about and your argument is they're advancing faster because they would have a fair chance at starting out? No offense, but that's a sad argument. They're advancing period. Considering they're not going to get anywhere after that, that's not advancing faster than anyone. That's having SOME reason to play. I find it completely selfish that people are butthut about even Matches when they can't even stand to fight their own. That's neither here nor there. The fact that people who are advancing in the competition are crying about some new Players getting a few Shards is pathetic.
That's not what it's about. It's about not letting people who vastly overpower them trample them at the gate. If you're offended by that, then that's sad.
I'm going to start out giving you credit where it's due. Despite a significant amount of floundering on how match making could be resolved, you have at least stayed consistent in one fundamental area, which is you want larger accounts beating up on smaller accounts.
Let's start with that...
I know you've said the sports analogies don't really hit the mark for you, but they are the most applicable analogy to be made.
There's is no sporting event, in the world, where people are handicapped when competing for the same rewards.
Some have suggested "kick starting" folks. I wouldn't personally advocate for that, but there is an associative logic to it though in NASCAR and Indy racing. Someone starts in first and someone starts last. That's determined before every race (not every season) through a qualifying session. Come race day though, everyone still competes against everyone else, and odds are, the faster car is gonna win. What that means though, is if I qualify poorly and and start near the bottom, you're still gonna face me. It doesn't solve your issue.
Major sport analogies, like football, baseball, and basketball have been talked to death, so I'm going to skip them.
The new analogy I'm going to use here is boxing. In that, everyone fights in a weight class. No questions, end of story. Sure everyone gets a prize, but the notable prize is that heavyweight champ.
Whether you can admit it or not, this is the system you want. Rewards would have to be adjusted (decreased) for the lower weight classes, but you get the piece of mind of knowing you're not gonna be knocked out repeatedly by a guy that outweighs you by 80lbs. It will inevitably lead to complaints from those lower weight classes, and the solution to that is to let people decide on their own what weight class they want to fight in (but you can't go below your class). So now if a light weight fighter wants a chance at heavy weight rewards, he can have it, but he has to know he's probably fighting all heavy weights. Conversely, a heavy weight cannon decide to fight in a light weight class. Each individual makes that choice at the start of the season...no competing in multiple classes, and no going back until the start of the next season.
Essentially, now each summoner decides the rewards they want to compete for. They can try heavyweight, likely getting much less from a better pot, or they can stay in their weight class, likely getting more of a worse pot.
That's the end of my analogies, but now I'm going to reiterate a few key components that you've continued to overlook.
1) I am not advocating for beating up lower accounts. I am advocating for FAIR competition, which means if we're competing for the same rewards, we're subject to fighting one another. No one gets an easier path than others, not even for a short period of time. I think most of the top accounts agree here....they want fairness, not punching bags.
2) This is all about rewards. I say that because you've gone on record stating you don't care. I struggle to believe that you honestly mean that, but if you do, I can guarantee that you're alone in that view point. This is absolutely all about rewards, because they are currently some of the best in the game, and that's WHY we play the game...get rewards, get better. No one is playing with 2*r1 champs for years on end simply because they like it.
3) This solution completely addresses sandbagging. That needs to be pointed out, cause you continue to bring up that sandbagging is how we got here. You're not wrong, but it's a dead topic, because it's been resolved, albeit in a poor design, which is what we're talking about fixing now.
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
Right. So give people the ability to pummel lower Accounts, by choice? That only serves whoever feels like taking it easy at the expense of others.
In every single competitive sport in the world that has legitimate fan bases there are rules to make thing’s competitive and hence somewhat fair. We don’t have heavyweight male champions fighting bantamweight female fighters. We don’t have little league teams going against major league teams. We don’t have junior varsity football teams going against nfl teams. All of you guys with whale accounts defending your right to have easy fights against low level guys should be ashamed and have a little more dignity than that. Any defending of the way the matchups are is ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see it’s lopsided. Thats the facts and any further argument is flat out lying to justify your easy wins. BTW i win most of my fights so not sour grapes. Just facts
In all those examples, they also don't go for the same rewards which is the issue many of us have. Lower accounts are able to get all victory track rewards and even GC rank rewards without having to face any of the stronger accounts that in many cases are getting worse rewards because of far harder matches.
The little league team doesn't face professional major league teams, your right, but they also don't advance to the playoffs and compete for the world series title after facing only little league teams, which is what is currently happening in BG matchmaking.
I don't think any of us larger accounts are saying we want to face the lower accounts. We are saying they shouldn't have a streamline easy path to getting the same or better rewards than stronger accounts who they don't have to face.
Better Rewards in Bronze and Silver? That's what we're talking about. Giving people a chance to start out without getting unreasonably overpowered.
Well you withdrawing from this conversation lasted almost 2 hours.
In every single competitive sport in the world that has legitimate fan bases there are rules to make thing’s competitive and hence somewhat fair. We don’t have heavyweight male champions fighting bantamweight female fighters. We don’t have little league teams going against major league teams. We don’t have junior varsity football teams going against nfl teams. All of you guys with whale accounts defending your right to have easy fights against low level guys should be ashamed and have a little more dignity than that. Any defending of the way the matchups are is ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see it’s lopsided. Thats the facts and any further argument is flat out lying to justify your easy wins. BTW i win most of my fights so not sour grapes. Just facts
In all those examples, they also don't go for the same rewards which is the issue many of us have. Lower accounts are able to get all victory track rewards and even GC rank rewards without having to face any of the stronger accounts that in many cases are getting worse rewards because of far harder matches.
The little league team doesn't face professional major league teams, your right, but they also don't advance to the playoffs and compete for the world series title after facing only little league teams, which is what is currently happening in BG matchmaking.
I don't think any of us larger accounts are saying we want to face the lower accounts. We are saying they shouldn't have a streamline easy path to getting the same or better rewards than stronger accounts who they don't have to face.
Better Rewards in Bronze and Silver? That's what we're talking about. Giving people a chance to start out without getting unreasonably overpowered.
Well you withdrawing from this conversation lasted almost 2 hours.
Everyone likes to hide behind the grey area that the system allows it and it isn't explicitly prohibited, but wrong is wrong. I learned that in primary school.
Is that the same primary school where you learned the definition of fair that you posted for us? Cause that didn't work out very well for you.
I know what fair is. Expecting to take out the weakest Players in Bronze 3 because it's too much to take people on in your own Title range ain't it.
You keep saying stuff like this but there are certainly a lot of us that have nothing to gain from a matchmaking overhaul but still desperately want one bc it's obvious to us how ridiculous the current system is. I just looked at my last 25 matches and I have a 92% win rate still currently with one of those two losses being a disconnect. Since the mode went live I've had anywhere from a 85-95% win rate through VT, I'm not struggling in the slightest.
You keep talking about not wanting favoritism with matching but what you actually seem to want is favoritism for one group but not the other. Random matching isn't favoritism for anyone regardless of whether it does give an advantage. That advantage is created by having multiple groups of people in the same competition. This nonsense some of you keep spouting about VT "being for everyone and the competition is GC" is just that, nonsense. The whole mode is for everyone to play but that doesn't mean everyone, or actually anyone, is guaranteed a certain amount of progress within it bc it is in its entirety a competitive mode. You just want to remove the competition from it to favor one group.
I'm all for separating the groups completely and having different reward brackets (good luck selling worse rewards to those you're feigning to be an advocate for), or the much easier sell of just staggering the starting position of different groups and then free for all matching.
Ditto. I may not have the strongest roster (top accounts) but have a winrate of 90%+ But I've watched alliance mates struggle to get through. Which I understand. being Paragon isnt about "skill". it is just natural progression. There is no "skill" gate. with enough patience, yo ucan get through content and rank up champs. But having to face stiff opposition, incredibly tough rosters over and over, and failing to get the string of wins required to progress is incredibly frustating. Personally, i dont have my marathon sessions anymore since every match is quite intense. While i dont have a problem with that, this is an exact throwback to the prestige war matchmaking. Different brackets for same rewards have NO PLACE in competition. Everyone faces the same opposition. thats how it should be.
My complete though process and situation in one comment. Rip my ally mates with top prestiges.
In every single competitive sport in the world that has legitimate fan bases there are rules to make thing’s competitive and hence somewhat fair. We don’t have heavyweight male champions fighting bantamweight female fighters. We don’t have little league teams going against major league teams. We don’t have junior varsity football teams going against nfl teams. All of you guys with whale accounts defending your right to have easy fights against low level guys should be ashamed and have a little more dignity than that. Any defending of the way the matchups are is ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see it’s lopsided. Thats the facts and any further argument is flat out lying to justify your easy wins. BTW i win most of my fights so not sour grapes. Just facts
In all those examples, they also don't go for the same rewards which is the issue many of us have. Lower accounts are able to get all victory track rewards and even GC rank rewards without having to face any of the stronger accounts that in many cases are getting worse rewards because of far harder matches.
The little league team doesn't face professional major league teams, your right, but they also don't advance to the playoffs and compete for the world series title after facing only little league teams, which is what is currently happening in BG matchmaking.
I don't think any of us larger accounts are saying we want to face the lower accounts. We are saying they shouldn't have a streamline easy path to getting the same or better rewards than stronger accounts who they don't have to face.
Better Rewards in Bronze and Silver? That's what we're talking about. Giving people a chance to start out without getting unreasonably overpowered.
That is what you and some others are talking about but is not what the person I responded to was talking about. Based on his comment, was pretty clear he doesn't think he should have to go against stronger rosters in any tier (to include in GC from how I read his post).
In every single competitive sport in the world that has legitimate fan bases there are rules to make thing’s competitive and hence somewhat fair. We don’t have heavyweight male champions fighting bantamweight female fighters. We don’t have little league teams going against major league teams. We don’t have junior varsity football teams going against nfl teams. All of you guys with whale accounts defending your right to have easy fights against low level guys should be ashamed and have a little more dignity than that. Any defending of the way the matchups are is ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see it’s lopsided. Thats the facts and any further argument is flat out lying to justify your easy wins. BTW i win most of my fights so not sour grapes. Just facts
In all those examples, they also don't go for the same rewards which is the issue many of us have. Lower accounts are able to get all victory track rewards and even GC rank rewards without having to face any of the stronger accounts that in many cases are getting worse rewards because of far harder matches.
The little league team doesn't face professional major league teams, your right, but they also don't advance to the playoffs and compete for the world series title after facing only little league teams, which is what is currently happening in BG matchmaking.
I don't think any of us larger accounts are saying we want to face the lower accounts. We are saying they shouldn't have a streamline easy path to getting the same or better rewards than stronger accounts who they don't have to face.
Better Rewards in Bronze and Silver? That's what we're talking about. Giving people a chance to start out without getting unreasonably overpowered.
That is what you and some others are talking about but is not what the person I responded to was talking about. Based on his comment, was pretty clear he doesn't think he should have to go against stronger rosters in any tier (to include in GC from how I read his post).
Fair. I don't agree with that. I think there needs to be a point where ELO takes over. I just think there should be a reasonable start.
In every single competitive sport in the world that has legitimate fan bases there are rules to make thing’s competitive and hence somewhat fair. We don’t have heavyweight male champions fighting bantamweight female fighters. We don’t have little league teams going against major league teams. We don’t have junior varsity football teams going against nfl teams. All of you guys with whale accounts defending your right to have easy fights against low level guys should be ashamed and have a little more dignity than that. Any defending of the way the matchups are is ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see it’s lopsided. Thats the facts and any further argument is flat out lying to justify your easy wins. BTW i win most of my fights so not sour grapes. Just facts
Agree 100%. But each one of your examples is a scenario where the prizes get more valuable as you go up the rungs of each of those sports/leagues. Pee Wee football players don’t get Super Bowl rings or the Lombardi trophy any more than Little Leaguers win the World Series. That’s the distinction many of the reasonable people here are trying to make.
Agree 100%. But each one of your examples is a scenario where the prizes get more valuable as you go up the rungs of each of those sports/leagues. Pee Wee football players don’t get Super Bowl rings or the Lombardi trophy any more than Little Leaguers win the World Series. That’s the distinction many of the reasonable people here are trying to make.
Dr. Zola
There seem to constantly be people jumping in and making strawman arguments that one sides 'just wants Paragon vs Uncollected', while the other side 'only wants Uncollected getting better rewards than Paragons'. It is more nuanced than that, as your analogy shows.
Taking the analogy further, the current matchmaking structure essentially has Little League/High School/Major League baseball playing in their respective leagues, but a Little League win is treated equally as a Major League win. All these leagues then enter the same Playoffs to win the same World Series. A 16-0 Little League team could win the World Series while a 14-2 Major League Team is left behind in the Divisional round.
Agree 100%. But each one of your examples is a scenario where the prizes get more valuable as you go up the rungs of each of those sports/leagues. Pee Wee football players don’t get Super Bowl rings or the Lombardi trophy any more than Little Leaguers win the World Series. That’s the distinction many of the reasonable people here are trying to make.
Dr. Zola
There seem to constantly be people jumping in and making strawman arguments that one sides 'just wants Paragon vs Uncollected', while the other side 'only wants Uncollected getting better rewards than Paragons'. It is more nuanced than that, as your analogy shows.
Taking the analogy further, the current matchmaking structure essentially has Little League/High School/Major League baseball playing in their respective leagues, but a Little League win is treated equally as a Major League win. All these leagues then enter the same Playoffs to win the same World Series. A 16-0 Little League team could win the World Series while a 14-2 Major League Team is left behind in the Divisional round.
Completely lost me on this analogy. But first, you completely left out a major part of the chain in baseball leagues which includes A, AA, AAA. These minor leagues are where people start off after high school or college while trying to hit the majors.
They compete for far lower rewards than those in a major league team. Those in little league and high school and even college are competing for no real individual rewards at all other than a team achievement in that individual grouping based on the competition they are going against.
In every single competitive sport in the world that has legitimate fan bases there are rules to make thing’s competitive and hence somewhat fair. We don’t have heavyweight male champions fighting bantamweight female fighters. We don’t have little league teams going against major league teams. We don’t have junior varsity football teams going against nfl teams. All of you guys with whale accounts defending your right to have easy fights against low level guys should be ashamed and have a little more dignity than that. Any defending of the way the matchups are is ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see it’s lopsided. Thats the facts and any further argument is flat out lying to justify your easy wins. BTW i win most of my fights so not sour grapes. Just facts
Would the heavyweight champion and the bantamweight fighter fight for the same title? No, your analogies make absolutely no sense. If anything, you just gave perfect examples of why nobody can have fair matches 100% of the time, we're competing for the exact same rewards. For something like that to work we would need different tiers for each player based on progression and adjust rewards accordingly for each tier. That way UC only face UC, Cav only Cav, TB only TB and Paragon only Paragon, the higher the progression the better the rewards. This of course is something that's extremely unlikely to happen because they would have to rework the entire VT system (and GC as well unless they just straight up make GC restricted for anyone that isn't TB or Paragon)
I'm not opposed to that. I just don't want the newest Players in the competition being trampled in the first few Brackets. That's my concern. There's too much of a gap for it to even be considered fair, regardless of the status quo. People are having issues as a Paragon coming up against more advanced Paragons and justifying letting them match with UC Players in the same breath. If someone fights their way up and punches to their own ceiling, that's one thing. Making them stonewall at the beginning is another. I'd rather them limit access to BGs than see that happen for people. They'd get upset for a time, and they'd get over it. Better that than laughing at their struggles because they're fuel for others in Bronze 3
Why do the newest players deserve to advance easier than the longest and best players in the game? Why should they think that they deserve to compete in a mode that EVERYONE is in the same pool and fighting for the same rewards?
Advance faster. The first 2 or 3 Brackets is what I'm talking about and your argument is they're advancing faster because they would have a fair chance at starting out? No offense, but that's a sad argument. They're advancing period. Considering they're not going to get anywhere after that, that's not advancing faster than anyone. That's having SOME reason to play. I find it completely selfish that people are butthut about even Matches when they can't even stand to fight their own. That's neither here nor there. The fact that people who are advancing in the competition are crying about some new Players getting a few Shards is pathetic.
That's not what it's about. It's about not letting people who vastly overpower them trample them at the gate. If you're offended by that, then that's sad.
I'm going to start out giving you credit where it's due. Despite a significant amount of floundering on how match making could be resolved, you have at least stayed consistent in one fundamental area, which is you want larger accounts beating up on smaller accounts.
Let's start with that...
I know you've said the sports analogies don't really hit the mark for you, but they are the most applicable analogy to be made.
There's is no sporting event, in the world, where people are handicapped when competing for the same rewards.
Some have suggested "kick starting" folks. I wouldn't personally advocate for that, but there is an associative logic to it though in NASCAR and Indy racing. Someone starts in first and someone starts last. That's determined before every race (not every season) through a qualifying session. Come race day though, everyone still competes against everyone else, and odds are, the faster car is gonna win. What that means though, is if I qualify poorly and and start near the bottom, you're still gonna face me. It doesn't solve your issue.
Major sport analogies, like football, baseball, and basketball have been talked to death, so I'm going to skip them.
The new analogy I'm going to use here is boxing. In that, everyone fights in a weight class. No questions, end of story. Sure everyone gets a prize, but the notable prize is that heavyweight champ.
Whether you can admit it or not, this is the system you want. Rewards would have to be adjusted (decreased) for the lower weight classes, but you get the piece of mind of knowing you're not gonna be knocked out repeatedly by a guy that outweighs you by 80lbs. It will inevitably lead to complaints from those lower weight classes, and the solution to that is to let people decide on their own what weight class they want to fight in (but you can't go below your class). So now if a light weight fighter wants a chance at heavy weight rewards, he can have it, but he has to know he's probably fighting all heavy weights. Conversely, a heavy weight cannon decide to fight in a light weight class. Each individual makes that choice at the start of the season...no competing in multiple classes, and no going back until the start of the next season.
Essentially, now each summoner decides the rewards they want to compete for. They can try heavyweight, likely getting much less from a better pot, or they can stay in their weight class, likely getting more of a worse pot.
That's the end of my analogies, but now I'm going to reiterate a few key components that you've continued to overlook.
1) I am not advocating for beating up lower accounts. I am advocating for FAIR competition, which means if we're competing for the same rewards, we're subject to fighting one another. No one gets an easier path than others, not even for a short period of time. I think most of the top accounts agree here....they want fairness, not punching bags.
2) This is all about rewards. I say that because you've gone on record stating you don't care. I struggle to believe that you honestly mean that, but if you do, I can guarantee that you're alone in that view point. This is absolutely all about rewards, because they are currently some of the best in the game, and that's WHY we play the game...get rewards, get better. No one is playing with 2*r1 champs for years on end simply because they like it.
3) This solution completely addresses sandbagging. That needs to be pointed out, cause you continue to bring up that sandbagging is how we got here. You're not wrong, but it's a dead topic, because it's been resolved, albeit in a poor design, which is what we're talking about fixing now.
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
Right. So give people the ability to pummel lower Accounts, by choice? That only serves whoever feels like taking it easy at the expense of others.
Not quite. He said anyone would be free to choose which rewards they want to compete for but you can't choose anything below your progression. Basically an UC can compete with Paragons if they want to but a Paragon can't choose to compete with UC, they can only compete with Paragons. This is probably one of the best solutions to all the issues, only problem is they would have to rework the whole thing pretty much and I'm not sure Kabam wants to do that.
I'm not opposed to that. I just don't want the newest Players in the competition being trampled in the first few Brackets. That's my concern. There's too much of a gap for it to even be considered fair, regardless of the status quo. People are having issues as a Paragon coming up against more advanced Paragons and justifying letting them match with UC Players in the same breath. If someone fights their way up and punches to their own ceiling, that's one thing. Making them stonewall at the beginning is another. I'd rather them limit access to BGs than see that happen for people. They'd get upset for a time, and they'd get over it. Better that than laughing at their struggles because they're fuel for others in Bronze 3
Why do the newest players deserve to advance easier than the longest and best players in the game? Why should they think that they deserve to compete in a mode that EVERYONE is in the same pool and fighting for the same rewards?
Advance faster. The first 2 or 3 Brackets is what I'm talking about and your argument is they're advancing faster because they would have a fair chance at starting out? No offense, but that's a sad argument. They're advancing period. Considering they're not going to get anywhere after that, that's not advancing faster than anyone. That's having SOME reason to play. I find it completely selfish that people are butthut about even Matches when they can't even stand to fight their own. That's neither here nor there. The fact that people who are advancing in the competition are crying about some new Players getting a few Shards is pathetic.
That's not what it's about. It's about not letting people who vastly overpower them trample them at the gate. If you're offended by that, then that's sad.
I'm going to start out giving you credit where it's due. Despite a significant amount of floundering on how match making could be resolved, you have at least stayed consistent in one fundamental area, which is you want larger accounts beating up on smaller accounts.
Let's start with that...
I know you've said the sports analogies don't really hit the mark for you, but they are the most applicable analogy to be made.
There's is no sporting event, in the world, where people are handicapped when competing for the same rewards.
Some have suggested "kick starting" folks. I wouldn't personally advocate for that, but there is an associative logic to it though in NASCAR and Indy racing. Someone starts in first and someone starts last. That's determined before every race (not every season) through a qualifying session. Come race day though, everyone still competes against everyone else, and odds are, the faster car is gonna win. What that means though, is if I qualify poorly and and start near the bottom, you're still gonna face me. It doesn't solve your issue.
Major sport analogies, like football, baseball, and basketball have been talked to death, so I'm going to skip them.
The new analogy I'm going to use here is boxing. In that, everyone fights in a weight class. No questions, end of story. Sure everyone gets a prize, but the notable prize is that heavyweight champ.
Whether you can admit it or not, this is the system you want. Rewards would have to be adjusted (decreased) for the lower weight classes, but you get the piece of mind of knowing you're not gonna be knocked out repeatedly by a guy that outweighs you by 80lbs. It will inevitably lead to complaints from those lower weight classes, and the solution to that is to let people decide on their own what weight class they want to fight in (but you can't go below your class). So now if a light weight fighter wants a chance at heavy weight rewards, he can have it, but he has to know he's probably fighting all heavy weights. Conversely, a heavy weight cannon decide to fight in a light weight class. Each individual makes that choice at the start of the season...no competing in multiple classes, and no going back until the start of the next season.
Essentially, now each summoner decides the rewards they want to compete for. They can try heavyweight, likely getting much less from a better pot, or they can stay in their weight class, likely getting more of a worse pot.
That's the end of my analogies, but now I'm going to reiterate a few key components that you've continued to overlook.
1) I am not advocating for beating up lower accounts. I am advocating for FAIR competition, which means if we're competing for the same rewards, we're subject to fighting one another. No one gets an easier path than others, not even for a short period of time. I think most of the top accounts agree here....they want fairness, not punching bags.
2) This is all about rewards. I say that because you've gone on record stating you don't care. I struggle to believe that you honestly mean that, but if you do, I can guarantee that you're alone in that view point. This is absolutely all about rewards, because they are currently some of the best in the game, and that's WHY we play the game...get rewards, get better. No one is playing with 2*r1 champs for years on end simply because they like it.
3) This solution completely addresses sandbagging. That needs to be pointed out, cause you continue to bring up that sandbagging is how we got here. You're not wrong, but it's a dead topic, because it's been resolved, albeit in a poor design, which is what we're talking about fixing now.
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
Right. So give people the ability to pummel lower Accounts, by choice? That only serves whoever feels like taking it easy at the expense of others.
Not quite. He said anyone would be free to choose which rewards they want to compete for but you can't choose anything below your progression. Basically an UC can compete with Paragons if they want to but a Paragon can't choose to compete with UC, they can only compete with Paragons. This is probably one of the best solutions to all the issues, only problem is they would have to rework the whole thing pretty much and I'm not sure Kabam wants to do that.
It's the same effect, albeit the UC would choose to join the other. Given the choices, people are always going to choose the highest. That's just a glorified version of taking them out.
In every single competitive sport in the world that has legitimate fan bases there are rules to make thing’s competitive and hence somewhat fair. We don’t have heavyweight male champions fighting bantamweight female fighters. We don’t have little league teams going against major league teams. We don’t have junior varsity football teams going against nfl teams. All of you guys with whale accounts defending your right to have easy fights against low level guys should be ashamed and have a little more dignity than that. Any defending of the way the matchups are is ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see it’s lopsided. Thats the facts and any further argument is flat out lying to justify your easy wins. BTW i win most of my fights so not sour grapes. Just facts
None of your examples gives the same rewards as each other. Awful argument.
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
Myself personally, I don't like them for three reasons:
1.. It thins out the competition. For a turnstile mode like Battlegrounds to succeed, we need a critical mass of players competing. If this number gets too low, we start to incur the potential for death spirals. The fewer players there are, the harder it is to find match, the more likely it is players will decide it is not worth sitting around waiting. Losing is bad, literally locked into looking for match is even worse. Separating the players into different groups will essentially create several separate Battlegrounds modes, each with a fraction of the current number of players. The odds of having enough players to sustain every progress tier in every division drops substantially.
2. If the best player in the game is a Cavalier player with a Cavalier roster, I want him or her to have a shot at the title. If they can beat Paragon veteran players with veteran rosters, I want them to have a path where they can prove it. If they are put into a lower weight division, not only will they be prohibited from competing fairly for those top spots, they will also be forced to beat up their lesser competition indefinitely instead. That's not just bad for them, it is also bad for the rest of the lower progress players.
3. It isn't the optimal balance between encouraging participation and promoting competition in my opinion. Ultimately what promotes competition is allowing everyone to compete to the level of their capabilities. But this must be counterbalaanced against the need to encourage players to try the mode out in the first place, to fill the turnstiles, to keep the mode active, and to allow those players who could one day be great to not just walk away at the start.
Initially at the start of the season (and I'm assuming we don't have persistent progress for discussion purposes) we don't know who's strong and who's weak. With this zero-knowledge situation, it is entirely reasonable to match players by roster strength. It is the best we have when we have nothing else. But as players play, we learn who's strong and who's weak by who wins and who loses. That information is authoritative: the winners are by definition stronger and the losers are by definition weaker, as that's how we define strong competitors: they win. The more a player plays, the more we build up a picture of how good they are based on their wins and losses, the more we should trust *that* information when it comes to matching. We slowly shift from trusting roster strength to trusting win/loss ratio. The more matches you play, the more "trustworthy" your win/loss ratio (essentially, your ELO rating) should become.
This sort of system in my opinion balances the needs of encouraging participation and competition in a fair manner, and it does so without overtly placing any fingers on the scales. We should match the best against the best, and the rest against the rest. We have no omniscient way to know who is who, so in all cases we should use the best information available to us. Setting persistence aside for now, roster strength is a weak but legitimate piece of information, and win/loss record filtered through ELO ratings is a better piece of information that starts off weak and gets progressively stronger with more matches factoring into the calculation.
So it seems obvious to me that this is the optimal configuration that balances things. It starts off heavily slanted towards participatory match making, but it converges towards pure competitive match making for all players that actually play any reasonable number of matches.
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
Myself personally, I don't like them for three reasons:
1.. It thins out the competition. For a turnstile mode like Battlegrounds to succeed, we need a critical mass of players competing. If this number gets too low, we start to incur the potential for death spirals. The fewer players there are, the harder it is to find match, the more likely it is players will decide it is not worth sitting around waiting. Losing is bad, literally locked into looking for match is even worse. Separating the players into different groups will essentially create several separate Battlegrounds modes, each with a fraction of the current number of players. The odds of having enough players to sustain every progress tier in every division drops substantially.
2. If the best player in the game is a Cavalier player with a Cavalier roster, I want him or her to have a shot at the title. If they can beat Paragon veteran players with veteran rosters, I want them to have a path where they can prove it. If they are put into a lower weight division, not only will they be prohibited from competing fairly for those top spots, they will also be forced to beat up their lesser competition indefinitely instead. That's not just bad for them, it is also bad for the rest of the lower progress players.
3. It isn't the optimal balance between encouraging participation and promoting competition in my opinion. Ultimately what promotes competition is allowing everyone to compete to the level of their capabilities. But this must be counterbalaanced against the need to encourage players to try the mode out in the first place, to fill the turnstiles, to keep the mode active, and to allow those players who could one day be great to not just walk away at the start.
Initially at the start of the season (and I'm assuming we don't have persistent progress for discussion purposes) we don't know who's strong and who's weak. With this zero-knowledge situation, it is entirely reasonable to match players by roster strength. It is the best we have when we have nothing else. But as players play, we learn who's strong and who's weak by who wins and who loses. That information is authoritative: the winners are by definition stronger and the losers are by definition weaker, as that's how we define strong competitors: they win. The more a player plays, the more we build up a picture of how good they are based on their wins and losses, the more we should trust *that* information when it comes to matching. We slowly shift from trusting roster strength to trusting win/loss ratio. The more matches you play, the more "trustworthy" your win/loss ratio (essentially, your ELO rating) should become.
This sort of system in my opinion balances the needs of encouraging participation and competition in a fair manner, and it does so without overtly placing any fingers on the scales. We should match the best against the best, and the rest against the rest. We have no omniscient way to know who is who, so in all cases we should use the best information available to us. Setting persistence aside for now, roster strength is a weak but legitimate piece of information, and win/loss record filtered through ELO ratings is a better piece of information that starts off weak and gets progressively stronger with more matches factoring into the calculation.
So it seems obvious to me that this is the optimal configuration that balances things. It starts off heavily slanted towards participatory match making, but it converges towards pure competitive match making for all players that actually play any reasonable number of matches.
I could get behind that. As long as there's some kind of protection for people starting out that keeps them from being overly-weighted. There are potential issues that could arise but there really is no such thing as perfect.
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
Myself personally, I don't like them for three reasons:
1.. It thins out the competition. For a turnstile mode like Battlegrounds to succeed, we need a critical mass of players competing. If this number gets too low, we start to incur the potential for death spirals. The fewer players there are, the harder it is to find match, the more likely it is players will decide it is not worth sitting around waiting. Losing is bad, literally locked into looking for match is even worse. Separating the players into different groups will essentially create several separate Battlegrounds modes, each with a fraction of the current number of players. The odds of having enough players to sustain every progress tier in every division drops substantially.
2. If the best player in the game is a Cavalier player with a Cavalier roster, I want him or her to have a shot at the title. If they can beat Paragon veteran players with veteran rosters, I want them to have a path where they can prove it. If they are put into a lower weight division, not only will they be prohibited from competing fairly for those top spots, they will also be forced to beat up their lesser competition indefinitely instead. That's not just bad for them, it is also bad for the rest of the lower progress players.
3. It isn't the optimal balance between encouraging participation and promoting competition in my opinion. Ultimately what promotes competition is allowing everyone to compete to the level of their capabilities. But this must be counterbalaanced against the need to encourage players to try the mode out in the first place, to fill the turnstiles, to keep the mode active, and to allow those players who could one day be great to not just walk away at the start.
Initially at the start of the season (and I'm assuming we don't have persistent progress for discussion purposes) we don't know who's strong and who's weak. With this zero-knowledge situation, it is entirely reasonable to match players by roster strength. It is the best we have when we have nothing else. But as players play, we learn who's strong and who's weak by who wins and who loses. That information is authoritative: the winners are by definition stronger and the losers are by definition weaker, as that's how we define strong competitors: they win. The more a player plays, the more we build up a picture of how good they are based on their wins and losses, the more we should trust *that* information when it comes to matching. We slowly shift from trusting roster strength to trusting win/loss ratio. The more matches you play, the more "trustworthy" your win/loss ratio (essentially, your ELO rating) should become.
This sort of system in my opinion balances the needs of encouraging participation and competition in a fair manner, and it does so without overtly placing any fingers on the scales. We should match the best against the best, and the rest against the rest. We have no omniscient way to know who is who, so in all cases we should use the best information available to us. Setting persistence aside for now, roster strength is a weak but legitimate piece of information, and win/loss record filtered through ELO ratings is a better piece of information that starts off weak and gets progressively stronger with more matches factoring into the calculation.
So it seems obvious to me that this is the optimal configuration that balances things. It starts off heavily slanted towards participatory match making, but it converges towards pure competitive match making for all players that actually play any reasonable number of matches.
I could get behind that. As long as there's some kind of protection for people starting out that keeps them from being overly-weighted. There are potential issues that could arise but there really is no such thing as perfect.
That’s why people propose to keep Prestige matchmaking only at staring VT tiers and then loosen it gradually. This is he fastest, fair enough solution, that in my opinion will have acceptance by all tiers of the playerbase. That’s isn’t too complicated for Kabam to implement, in contrast to most other suggestions.
Why is the season where I have by far the best roster I've ever had the one that's the hardest to progress? Please explain how that makes sense.
This node combination is the 'easiest' compared to prior season since you're only dealing with Weakness.
Since more people think they can handle this node combination compared to previous seasons, there is likely more players participating. Even if there are the same % of good/bad players in the pool, there are still more total 'good' players that you could be matched up against and lose to.
Additionally, since the node combinations don't do unavoidable damage (unless Void is present), winning a round is usually not where one player is KO'd but rather which player is closer to hundred percent health (due to Willpower healling from weakness) and which player got the KO faster. In previous season, I've won rounds where I only have 20-30k points range since the other player got KO'd; this season most rounds I have to be in the 40k+ point range and usually the victory/loss is due to a 1000 point difference only.
Why is the season where I have by far the best roster I've ever had the one that's the hardest to progress? Please explain how that makes sense.
This node combination is the 'easiest' compared to prior season since you're only dealing with Weakness.
Since more people think they can handle this node combination compared to previous seasons, there is likely more players participating. Even if there are the same % of good/bad players in the pool, there are still more total 'good' players that you could be matched up against and lose to.
Additionally, since the node combinations don't do unavoidable damage (unless Void is present), winning a round is usually not where one player is KO'd but rather which player is closer to hundred percent health (due to Willpower healling from weakness) and which player got the KO faster. In previous season, I've won rounds where I only have 20-30k points range since the other player got KO'd; this season most rounds I have to be in the 40k+ point range and usually the victory/loss is due to a 1000 point difference only.
That's a decent point. I lost a round last night by 32 (47,511 to 47,543) so the margin of error is super thin this season. Last season's harder rewards were better for skilled players.
Why is the season where I have by far the best roster I've ever had the one that's the hardest to progress? Please explain how that makes sense.
Easy. And you know that probably. Kabam created a gamemode which punish you for progression . They did not want you to spend money and upgrade your champs. Makes zero sens in my world but I am not a boss of Kabam
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
Myself personally, I don't like them for three reasons:
1.. It thins out the competition. For a turnstile mode like Battlegrounds to succeed, we need a critical mass of players competing. If this number gets too low, we start to incur the potential for death spirals. The fewer players there are, the harder it is to find match, the more likely it is players will decide it is not worth sitting around waiting. Losing is bad, literally locked into looking for match is even worse. Separating the players into different groups will essentially create several separate Battlegrounds modes, each with a fraction of the current number of players. The odds of having enough players to sustain every progress tier in every division drops substantially.
2. If the best player in the game is a Cavalier player with a Cavalier roster, I want him or her to have a shot at the title. If they can beat Paragon veteran players with veteran rosters, I want them to have a path where they can prove it. If they are put into a lower weight division, not only will they be prohibited from competing fairly for those top spots, they will also be forced to beat up their lesser competition indefinitely instead. That's not just bad for them, it is also bad for the rest of the lower progress players.
3. It isn't the optimal balance between encouraging participation and promoting competition in my opinion. Ultimately what promotes competition is allowing everyone to compete to the level of their capabilities. But this must be counterbalaanced against the need to encourage players to try the mode out in the first place, to fill the turnstiles, to keep the mode active, and to allow those players who could one day be great to not just walk away at the start.
Initially at the start of the season (and I'm assuming we don't have persistent progress for discussion purposes) we don't know who's strong and who's weak. With this zero-knowledge situation, it is entirely reasonable to match players by roster strength. It is the best we have when we have nothing else. But as players play, we learn who's strong and who's weak by who wins and who loses. That information is authoritative: the winners are by definition stronger and the losers are by definition weaker, as that's how we define strong competitors: they win. The more a player plays, the more we build up a picture of how good they are based on their wins and losses, the more we should trust *that* information when it comes to matching. We slowly shift from trusting roster strength to trusting win/loss ratio. The more matches you play, the more "trustworthy" your win/loss ratio (essentially, your ELO rating) should become.
This sort of system in my opinion balances the needs of encouraging participation and competition in a fair manner, and it does so without overtly placing any fingers on the scales. We should match the best against the best, and the rest against the rest. We have no omniscient way to know who is who, so in all cases we should use the best information available to us. Setting persistence aside for now, roster strength is a weak but legitimate piece of information, and win/loss record filtered through ELO ratings is a better piece of information that starts off weak and gets progressively stronger with more matches factoring into the calculation.
So it seems obvious to me that this is the optimal configuration that balances things. It starts off heavily slanted towards participatory match making, but it converges towards pure competitive match making for all players that actually play any reasonable number of matches.
I could get behind that. As long as there's some kind of protection for people starting out that keeps them from being overly-weighted. There are potential issues that could arise but there really is no such thing as perfect.
Can you explain what you mean with overly-weighted? Because how I interpreted DNA's comment is that it starts out by roster matchmaking and the gradually goes to ELO matchmaking. Which means if lower accounts win a lot by playing their own rosters they will eventually compete against higher accounts and I think that's how it should be. I don't see how any extra protection is necessary? Unless you mean protection for all players to not be overly-weighted?
The United States, as well as many other countries, have a system that separates people by classes too. It's called capitalism. I personally can't afford a Bentley, but I don't shout at every person who can telling them it's not fair.
You legitimately make me wonder if you were camped out in a tent on wall street during the 99% movement holding a Bernie Sanders sign.
In any system, where everyone is competing for the same pool of rewards, everyone should be subject to competing against everyone else. That is the fundamental definition of fairness.
I think everyone would give a great deal more credibility to your posts if you started a new thread asking Kabam to create separate progression based brackets in BG, rather than continuing to simply claim you don't want to fight stronger people.
And for crying out loud, the system would level itself out anyway. If the matches were random, those stronger accounts would advance to GC faster leaving the weaker accounts remaining in VT for you to fight against. Bottom line, you'd still get to GC, you just wouldn't have a 1-2 week head start on accounts you never had to face that are significantly stronger than yours.
Advocating for anything else is a veiled request for a free ride to rewards you couldn't get in a "fair" system.
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
Myself personally, I don't like them for three reasons:
1.. It thins out the competition. For a turnstile mode like Battlegrounds to succeed, we need a critical mass of players competing. If this number gets too low, we start to incur the potential for death spirals. The fewer players there are, the harder it is to find match, the more likely it is players will decide it is not worth sitting around waiting. Losing is bad, literally locked into looking for match is even worse. Separating the players into different groups will essentially create several separate Battlegrounds modes, each with a fraction of the current number of players. The odds of having enough players to sustain every progress tier in every division drops substantially.
2. If the best player in the game is a Cavalier player with a Cavalier roster, I want him or her to have a shot at the title. If they can beat Paragon veteran players with veteran rosters, I want them to have a path where they can prove it. If they are put into a lower weight division, not only will they be prohibited from competing fairly for those top spots, they will also be forced to beat up their lesser competition indefinitely instead. That's not just bad for them, it is also bad for the rest of the lower progress players.
3. It isn't the optimal balance between encouraging participation and promoting competition in my opinion. Ultimately what promotes competition is allowing everyone to compete to the level of their capabilities. But this must be counterbalaanced against the need to encourage players to try the mode out in the first place, to fill the turnstiles, to keep the mode active, and to allow those players who could one day be great to not just walk away at the start.
Initially at the start of the season (and I'm assuming we don't have persistent progress for discussion purposes) we don't know who's strong and who's weak. With this zero-knowledge situation, it is entirely reasonable to match players by roster strength. It is the best we have when we have nothing else. But as players play, we learn who's strong and who's weak by who wins and who loses. That information is authoritative: the winners are by definition stronger and the losers are by definition weaker, as that's how we define strong competitors: they win. The more a player plays, the more we build up a picture of how good they are based on their wins and losses, the more we should trust *that* information when it comes to matching. We slowly shift from trusting roster strength to trusting win/loss ratio. The more matches you play, the more "trustworthy" your win/loss ratio (essentially, your ELO rating) should become.
This sort of system in my opinion balances the needs of encouraging participation and competition in a fair manner, and it does so without overtly placing any fingers on the scales. We should match the best against the best, and the rest against the rest. We have no omniscient way to know who is who, so in all cases we should use the best information available to us. Setting persistence aside for now, roster strength is a weak but legitimate piece of information, and win/loss record filtered through ELO ratings is a better piece of information that starts off weak and gets progressively stronger with more matches factoring into the calculation.
So it seems obvious to me that this is the optimal configuration that balances things. It starts off heavily slanted towards participatory match making, but it converges towards pure competitive match making for all players that actually play any reasonable number of matches.
I could get behind that. As long as there's some kind of protection for people starting out that keeps them from being overly-weighted. There are potential issues that could arise but there really is no such thing as perfect.
Can you explain what you mean with overly-weighted? Because how I interpreted DNA's comment is that it starts out by roster matchmaking and the gradually goes to ELO matchmaking. Which means if lower accounts win a lot by playing their own rosters they will eventually compete against higher accounts and I think that's how it should be. I don't see how any extra protection is necessary? Unless you mean protection for all players to not be overly-weighted?
I just said I agreed with that system. What I meant was overly-weighted from the start.
Battlegrounds is so easy why do you need it to match prestige levels, if your good at the game and you know which champs will work as defenders or attackers, then you will win mathces. And even if you lose you can just play again.
Battlegrounds is so easy why do you need it to match prestige levels, if your good at the game and you know which champs will work as defenders or attackers, then you will win mathces. And even if you lose you can just play again.
Because most high prestige players do know the game as well. And in that case your win depends only on roster size and draft luck. In lower tiers you need none of those. So basically lots of people play the game on harder mode while getting less rewards for a competitive tournament. If you indeed wonder, why people are not happy, and not satisfied with my answer, feel free to read the thread, as you obviously have not yet
Battlegrounds is so easy why do you need it to match prestige levels, if your good at the game and you know which champs will work as defenders or attackers, then you will win mathces. And even if you lose you can just play again.
Because most high prestige players do know the game as well. And in that case your win depends only on roster size and draft luck. In lower tiers you need none of those. So basically lots of people play the game on harder mode while getting less rewards for a competitive tournament. If you indeed wonder, why people are not happy, and not satisfied with my answer, feel free to read the thread, as you obviously have not yet
People with lower Prestige are playing the same competition. It still depends on size and draft luck, as well as performance. They're not playing an entirely different game.
Comments
Let's start with that...
I know you've said the sports analogies don't really hit the mark for you, but they are the most applicable analogy to be made.
There's is no sporting event, in the world, where people are handicapped when competing for the same rewards.
Some have suggested "kick starting" folks. I wouldn't personally advocate for that, but there is an associative logic to it though in NASCAR and Indy racing. Someone starts in first and someone starts last. That's determined before every race (not every season) through a qualifying session. Come race day though, everyone still competes against everyone else, and odds are, the faster car is gonna win. What that means though, is if I qualify poorly and and start near the bottom, you're still gonna face me. It doesn't solve your issue.
Major sport analogies, like football, baseball, and basketball have been talked to death, so I'm going to skip them.
The new analogy I'm going to use here is boxing. In that, everyone fights in a weight class. No questions, end of story. Sure everyone gets a prize, but the notable prize is that heavyweight champ.
Whether you can admit it or not, this is the system you want. Rewards would have to be adjusted (decreased) for the lower weight classes, but you get the piece of mind of knowing you're not gonna be knocked out repeatedly by a guy that outweighs you by 80lbs. It will inevitably lead to complaints from those lower weight classes, and the solution to that is to let people decide on their own what weight class they want to fight in (but you can't go below your class). So now if a light weight fighter wants a chance at heavy weight rewards, he can have it, but he has to know he's probably fighting all heavy weights. Conversely, a heavy weight cannon decide to fight in a light weight class. Each individual makes that choice at the start of the season...no competing in multiple classes, and no going back until the start of the next season.
Essentially, now each summoner decides the rewards they want to compete for. They can try heavyweight, likely getting much less from a better pot, or they can stay in their weight class, likely getting more of a worse pot.
That's the end of my analogies, but now I'm going to reiterate a few key components that you've continued to overlook.
1) I am not advocating for beating up lower accounts. I am advocating for FAIR competition, which means if we're competing for the same rewards, we're subject to fighting one another. No one gets an easier path than others, not even for a short period of time. I think most of the top accounts agree here....they want fairness, not punching bags.
2) This is all about rewards. I say that because you've gone on record stating you don't care. I struggle to believe that you honestly mean that, but if you do, I can guarantee that you're alone in that view point. This is absolutely all about rewards, because they are currently some of the best in the game, and that's WHY we play the game...get rewards, get better. No one is playing with 2*r1 champs for years on end simply because they like it.
3) This solution completely addresses sandbagging. That needs to be pointed out, cause you continue to bring up that sandbagging is how we got here. You're not wrong, but it's a dead topic, because it's been resolved, albeit in a poor design, which is what we're talking about fixing now.
So if you've taken the time to read this, please tell me where I'm wrong that "weight classes" are the best way to fundamentally fix BGs.
The little league team doesn't face professional major league teams, your right, but they also don't advance to the playoffs and compete for the world series title after facing only little league teams, which is what is currently happening in BG matchmaking.
I don't think any of us larger accounts are saying we want to face the lower accounts. We are saying they shouldn't have a streamline easy path to getting the same or better rewards than stronger accounts who they don't have to face.
Rip my ally mates with top prestiges.
Dr. Zola
Taking the analogy further, the current matchmaking structure essentially has Little League/High School/Major League baseball playing in their respective leagues, but a Little League win is treated equally as a Major League win. All these leagues then enter the same Playoffs to win the same World Series. A 16-0 Little League team could win the World Series while a 14-2 Major League Team is left behind in the Divisional round.
They compete for far lower rewards than those in a major league team. Those in little league and high school and even college are competing for no real individual rewards at all other than a team achievement in that individual grouping based on the competition they are going against.
If anything, you just gave perfect examples of why nobody can have fair matches 100% of the time, we're competing for the exact same rewards.
For something like that to work we would need different tiers for each player based on progression and adjust rewards accordingly for each tier. That way UC only face UC, Cav only Cav, TB only TB and Paragon only Paragon, the higher the progression the better the rewards. This of course is something that's extremely unlikely to happen because they would have to rework the entire VT system (and GC as well unless they just straight up make GC restricted for anyone that isn't TB or Paragon)
This is probably one of the best solutions to all the issues, only problem is they would have to rework the whole thing pretty much and I'm not sure Kabam wants to do that.
1.. It thins out the competition. For a turnstile mode like Battlegrounds to succeed, we need a critical mass of players competing. If this number gets too low, we start to incur the potential for death spirals. The fewer players there are, the harder it is to find match, the more likely it is players will decide it is not worth sitting around waiting. Losing is bad, literally locked into looking for match is even worse. Separating the players into different groups will essentially create several separate Battlegrounds modes, each with a fraction of the current number of players. The odds of having enough players to sustain every progress tier in every division drops substantially.
2. If the best player in the game is a Cavalier player with a Cavalier roster, I want him or her to have a shot at the title. If they can beat Paragon veteran players with veteran rosters, I want them to have a path where they can prove it. If they are put into a lower weight division, not only will they be prohibited from competing fairly for those top spots, they will also be forced to beat up their lesser competition indefinitely instead. That's not just bad for them, it is also bad for the rest of the lower progress players.
3. It isn't the optimal balance between encouraging participation and promoting competition in my opinion. Ultimately what promotes competition is allowing everyone to compete to the level of their capabilities. But this must be counterbalaanced against the need to encourage players to try the mode out in the first place, to fill the turnstiles, to keep the mode active, and to allow those players who could one day be great to not just walk away at the start.
Initially at the start of the season (and I'm assuming we don't have persistent progress for discussion purposes) we don't know who's strong and who's weak. With this zero-knowledge situation, it is entirely reasonable to match players by roster strength. It is the best we have when we have nothing else. But as players play, we learn who's strong and who's weak by who wins and who loses. That information is authoritative: the winners are by definition stronger and the losers are by definition weaker, as that's how we define strong competitors: they win. The more a player plays, the more we build up a picture of how good they are based on their wins and losses, the more we should trust *that* information when it comes to matching. We slowly shift from trusting roster strength to trusting win/loss ratio. The more matches you play, the more "trustworthy" your win/loss ratio (essentially, your ELO rating) should become.
This sort of system in my opinion balances the needs of encouraging participation and competition in a fair manner, and it does so without overtly placing any fingers on the scales. We should match the best against the best, and the rest against the rest. We have no omniscient way to know who is who, so in all cases we should use the best information available to us. Setting persistence aside for now, roster strength is a weak but legitimate piece of information, and win/loss record filtered through ELO ratings is a better piece of information that starts off weak and gets progressively stronger with more matches factoring into the calculation.
So it seems obvious to me that this is the optimal configuration that balances things. It starts off heavily slanted towards participatory match making, but it converges towards pure competitive match making for all players that actually play any reasonable number of matches.
This is he fastest, fair enough solution, that in my opinion will have acceptance by all tiers of the playerbase.
That’s isn’t too complicated for Kabam to implement, in contrast to most other suggestions.
Since more people think they can handle this node combination compared to previous seasons, there is likely more players participating. Even if there are the same % of good/bad players in the pool, there are still more total 'good' players that you could be matched up against and lose to.
Additionally, since the node combinations don't do unavoidable damage (unless Void is present), winning a round is usually not where one player is KO'd but rather which player is closer to hundred percent health (due to Willpower healling from weakness) and which player got the KO faster.
In previous season, I've won rounds where I only have 20-30k points range since the other player got KO'd; this season most rounds I have to be in the 40k+ point range and usually the victory/loss is due to a 1000 point difference only.