.....and everyone else is expected to stay their progress until the last week or two. That's not a competitive mode. That's a time gate based on the size of Accounts.
Welcome to the conversation my friend!!
You just described what myself, and countless other high prestige Paragons had to deal with. I personally didn't get into GC in season 4 until two days prior to the end of the season.
Funny how it's unfair if lower accounts have to wait to string together wins to advance, but perfectly fine if higher level accounts have to.
If you can point out anywhere I said that, I'd be elated to respond to it. I never at all, actually. I said both are valid issues. Both sides. In fact, numerous times I've indicated that I see the issue. I understand the game mode is competitive, but that doesn't mean issues are.
.....and everyone else is expected to stay their progress until the last week or two. That's not a competitive mode. That's a time gate based on the size of Accounts.
Welcome to the conversation my friend!!
You just described what myself, and countless other high prestige Paragons had to deal with. I personally didn't get into GC in season 4 until two days prior to the end of the season.
Funny how it's unfair if lower accounts have to wait to string together wins to advance, but perfectly fine if higher level accounts have to.
If you can point out anywhere I said that, I'd be elated to respond to it. I never at all, actually. I said both are valid issues. Both sides. In fact, numerous times I've indicated that I see the issue. I understand the game mode is competitive, but that doesn't mean issues are.
It's hard to know exactly where you stand on a topic, because you refuse to state anything concisely or offer any recommendations for improvements.
All I can gather from the number of comments you've made is that you don't think it's fair to have to fight others who are competing for the same rewards.
The ramifications of that have resulted in the situation that currently exists giving some accounts (lower strength) an easier path to higher rewards than that of stronger accounts.
So here is my statement, made crystal clear:
1) In a competitive mode, where everyone is vying for the same rewards, and one individual's placement has a direct impact on another's placement for said rewards, those individuals should be subject to fighting one another at any given point in time (VT and/or GC), it should be random.
2) If those weaker accounts take exception to a fair competition for the same pool of rewards, those folks should be isolated into their own lower brackets with lower reward distributions.
I want them to keep the "protections" for the first tier of fighting. As you go through Gold, etc; you start losing protections. Just before GC, there should be no protections. That way, if you can't compete, you will demote down to a competative level.
There's no demotions in the VT track (at least at the moment), beyond a certain point if you can't win, you stall at a certain tier. Or rather, progress slows to a potentially unacceptable level.
The idea of "protecting" lower tier players at lower participation levels is something I think most reasonable people would agree to. The simplest way to do that would be to implement ELO matching in the VC, but then weight matches by meta-prestige (the wider prestige calculation that the game appears to currently be using). Match by ELO, but prefer to match on prestige when possible. Then lower that weighting as they improve tier, until that weighting disappears. Personally, I would phase it out significantly before GC. If players were still getting significant measurable advantages all the way up to just before GC, that would translate to having those advantages for essentially all of the VC rewards. I would probably phase out somewhere around Gold 1.
Small accounts getting to GC is bad for them too. They are perpetual punching bags, until the end of the season.
The benefit of small accounts reaching GC is a) they scoop up all the track rewards in the VC and b) they automatically get the lowest tier of GC rewards even if they fail to win a single match. I wouldn't say this is bad for them.
Deleted a much longer reply post to someone else, but I’m surprised no one has quantified precisely how much BG loot a player gets simply by (a) fulfilling the 3X/week BG objectives, (b) progressing into high Gold/low Platinum tiers, (c) playing in an alliance that puts reasonable effort into BGs and (d) collecting solo BG objectives.
A year ago, the ability to collect the kinds of prizes obtainable via that level of BG loot would have been incomprehensible for low-, mid-and some higher progression rosters. And yet…here it is for the taking. Just play the mode.
That’s one reason why I don’t really think it makes sense to bubble-wrap BGs too much.
.....and everyone else is expected to stay their progress until the last week or two. That's not a competitive mode. That's a time gate based on the size of Accounts.
Welcome to the conversation my friend!!
You just described what myself, and countless other high prestige Paragons had to deal with. I personally didn't get into GC in season 4 until two days prior to the end of the season.
Funny how it's unfair if lower accounts have to wait to string together wins to advance, but perfectly fine if higher level accounts have to.
If you can point out anywhere I said that, I'd be elated to respond to it. I never at all, actually. I said both are valid issues. Both sides. In fact, numerous times I've indicated that I see the issue. I understand the game mode is competitive, but that doesn't mean issues are.
It's hard to know exactly where you stand on a topic, because you refuse to state anything concisely or offer any recommendations for improvements.
All I can gather from the number of comments you've made is that you don't think it's fair to have to fight others who are competing for the same rewards.
The ramifications of that have resulted in the situation that currently exists giving some accounts (lower strength) an easier path to higher rewards than that of stronger accounts.
So here is my statement, made crystal clear:
1) In a competitive mode, where everyone is vying for the same rewards, and one individual's placement has a direct impact on another's placement for said rewards, those individuals should be subject to fighting one another at any given point in time (VT and/or GC), it should be random.
2) If those weaker accounts take exception to a fair competition for the same pool of rewards, those folks should be isolated into their own lower brackets with lower reward distributions.
What is your stance?
Therein lies the reason you're having a hard time seeing my position. I'm not against you or them. Both sides have valid issues. I'm not sure why you're so polarized about this, but let me explain again. It is entirely plausible to have a mechanic ensure a reasonable start for everyone and still meet the end-goal. Someone suggested having the current Matchmaking for the first 5 Tiers of the VT. I said I could get behind about half the Tiers, but I'm not steadfast on that. The main point is that SOMETHING allows Players to have a reasonable start, then progress takes over. I do not support the largest Accounts pecking off the lowest ones at the onset of the competition. Nor am I supporting them having an easier path to the top. What I'm supporting is fairness for both sides. Hence my comments about both issues being valid. Anyone who would reasonably dispute that is either confused about the concept, or expecting an easy path to the GC themselves. That would be the other side of the same coin.
I want them to keep the "protections" for the first tier of fighting. As you go through Gold, etc; you start losing protections. Just before GC, there should be no protections. That way, if you can't compete, you will demote down to a competative level.
There's no demotions in the VT track (at least at the moment), beyond a certain point if you can't win, you stall at a certain tier. Or rather, progress slows to a potentially unacceptable level.
The idea of "protecting" lower tier players at lower participation levels is something I think most reasonable people would agree to. The simplest way to do that would be to implement ELO matching in the VC, but then weight matches by meta-prestige (the wider prestige calculation that the game appears to currently be using). Match by ELO, but prefer to match on prestige when possible. Then lower that weighting as they improve tier, until that weighting disappears. Personally, I would phase it out significantly before GC. If players were still getting significant measurable advantages all the way up to just before GC, that would translate to having those advantages for essentially all of the VC rewards. I would probably phase out somewhere around Gold 1.
Small accounts getting to GC is bad for them too. They are perpetual punching bags, until the end of the season.
The benefit of small accounts reaching GC is a) they scoop up all the track rewards in the VC and b) they automatically get the lowest tier of GC rewards even if they fail to win a single match. I wouldn't say this is bad for them.
Deleted a much longer reply post to someone else, but I’m surprised no one has quantified precisely how much BG loot a player gets simply by (a) fulfilling the 3X/week BG objectives, (b) progressing into high Gold/low Platinum tiers, (c) playing in an alliance that puts reasonable effort into BGs and (d) collecting solo BG objectives.
The largest ambiguity is in the "playing in an alliance that puts reasonable effort into BGs" because there's probably a very wide range of what people think is "reasonable effort." The rewards are also scattered across a couple currencies: trophies, marks, and shards in particular.
I did some calculations for Platinum 3 vs everything, which was 59400 token vs 135900 tokens. Those calculations did not include the 48 hour objectives. We get four of those every two days (win one, win two, win three, participate in three), which means in a 30 day season there are potentially 60 of them. I think they are 200 tokens per, for a theoretical maximum of 12000 tokens from objectives.
If you really put your mind to it, even if you don't have a strong winning percentage you could reasonably be expected to earn something between 40,000 and 70,000 tokens for completing the objectives regularly and progressing to somewhere between Gold 3 and Platinum 2. YMMV for alliance rewards. The solo rewards are some amount of 6* shards; you'd expect such a player to grab at least half of them (~7500).
I want them to keep the "protections" for the first tier of fighting. As you go through Gold, etc; you start losing protections. Just before GC, there should be no protections. That way, if you can't compete, you will demote down to a competative level.
There's no demotions in the VT track (at least at the moment), beyond a certain point if you can't win, you stall at a certain tier. Or rather, progress slows to a potentially unacceptable level.
The idea of "protecting" lower tier players at lower participation levels is something I think most reasonable people would agree to. The simplest way to do that would be to implement ELO matching in the VC, but then weight matches by meta-prestige (the wider prestige calculation that the game appears to currently be using). Match by ELO, but prefer to match on prestige when possible. Then lower that weighting as they improve tier, until that weighting disappears. Personally, I would phase it out significantly before GC. If players were still getting significant measurable advantages all the way up to just before GC, that would translate to having those advantages for essentially all of the VC rewards. I would probably phase out somewhere around Gold 1.
Small accounts getting to GC is bad for them too. They are perpetual punching bags, until the end of the season.
The benefit of small accounts reaching GC is a) they scoop up all the track rewards in the VC and b) they automatically get the lowest tier of GC rewards even if they fail to win a single match. I wouldn't say this is bad for them.
Deleted a much longer reply post to someone else, but I’m surprised no one has quantified precisely how much BG loot a player gets simply by (a) fulfilling the 3X/week BG objectives, (b) progressing into high Gold/low Platinum tiers, (c) playing in an alliance that puts reasonable effort into BGs and (d) collecting solo BG objectives.
The largest ambiguity is in the "playing in an alliance that puts reasonable effort into BGs" because there's probably a very wide range of what people think is "reasonable effort." The rewards are also scattered across a couple currencies: trophies, marks, and shards in particular.
I did some calculations for Platinum 3 vs everything, which was 59400 token vs 135900 tokens. Those calculations did not include the 48 hour objectives. We get four of those every two days (win one, win two, win three, participate in three), which means in a 30 day season there are potentially 60 of them. I think they are 200 tokens per, for a theoretical maximum of 12000 tokens from objectives.
If you really put your mind to it, even if you don't have a strong winning percentage you could reasonably be expected to earn something between 40,000 and 70,000 tokens for completing the objectives regularly and progressing to somewhere between Gold 3 and Platinum 2. YMMV for alliance rewards. The solo rewards are some amount of 6* shards; you'd expect such a player to grab at least half of them (~7500).
When I think about my alliance, which sports anywhere from 4-6 players who actually play BGs, we manage to clear 1 million points pretty regularly.
That’s good for decent prizes, given the scope of effort. I’d imagine an alliance of total noobs with even just 20 playing could match that score.
For me, that underscores how generous the prize levels are for BGs. For someone under 400K rating, for example, few if any modes reward like BGs do.
I want them to keep the "protections" for the first tier of fighting. As you go through Gold, etc; you start losing protections. Just before GC, there should be no protections. That way, if you can't compete, you will demote down to a competative level.
There's no demotions in the VT track (at least at the moment), beyond a certain point if you can't win, you stall at a certain tier. Or rather, progress slows to a potentially unacceptable level.
The idea of "protecting" lower tier players at lower participation levels is something I think most reasonable people would agree to. The simplest way to do that would be to implement ELO matching in the VC, but then weight matches by meta-prestige (the wider prestige calculation that the game appears to currently be using). Match by ELO, but prefer to match on prestige when possible. Then lower that weighting as they improve tier, until that weighting disappears. Personally, I would phase it out significantly before GC. If players were still getting significant measurable advantages all the way up to just before GC, that would translate to having those advantages for essentially all of the VC rewards. I would probably phase out somewhere around Gold 1.
Small accounts getting to GC is bad for them too. They are perpetual punching bags, until the end of the season.
The benefit of small accounts reaching GC is a) they scoop up all the track rewards in the VC and b) they automatically get the lowest tier of GC rewards even if they fail to win a single match. I wouldn't say this is bad for them.
I personally proposed, to keep Prestige matchmaking in first tiers of VT, and gradually phase it out before Gold brackets. For example from Bronze3 to Silver2, or Silver1 maximum. Bronze3 would have a strict Prestige matchmaking (matches within 0.5k Prestige difference), broaden up to 3k Prestige difference at Siver2/Silver1. From Gold3 and above, random matchmaking within same tier. That’s 5-6 VT tiers with protection for low accounts. As it is now, is all 16 VT tiers. That’s absurd for a competitive mode. Proposals have been made. Still, with less than two days remaining for the new season, no change or any announcement for matchmaking adjustments. Seems like we will have to wait few seasons till Kabam takes action, as happened at AW. Exact same story.
@GroundedWisdom the point I was making with @DNA3000 is that the every other day BG objectives and the BG alliance/solo events reward a significant amount of BG loot to players.
Added to whatever one gets from advancing through the tiers, even a high Gold or low Platinum player walks away with prizes that would have seemed highly generous not that long ago (because of the amount of items purchasable with the BG currencies in the BG store). He estimated a total of 40K-70K tokens earnable with just a mediocre performance in BGs over a season.
When we talk about how much easier smaller players need it to be to get to GC, it’s important to remember there are so many ways they get rewarded for playing BGs. Focusing only on GC as the goal misses the sheer volume of prizes able to be obtained via events and objectives along the way. I’m sitting on nearly 40K tokens right now and I feel like I’ve got a huge piggy bank.
My argument has never been the Rewards. It's the Matches themselves. Hence my suggestion to accommodate a more reasonable start. There's more to consider than just what Players are getting.
My argument has never been the Rewards. It's the Matches themselves. Hence my suggestion to accommodate a more reasonable start. There's more to consider than just what Players are getting.
If not for rewards, what are the people playing for? Whether it’s bigger or smaller account, everyone is playing for rewards to a large extent.
My argument has never been the Rewards. It's the Matches themselves. Hence my suggestion to accommodate a more reasonable start. There's more to consider than just what Players are getting.
If not for rewards, what are the people playing for? Whether it’s bigger or smaller account, everyone is playing for rewards to a large extent.
Rewards are only one aspect of a competition or game mode. People are playing for them, for sure. They're also playing to participate in the game itself. The experience matters as well. There's a fine line between being competitive and ruining the experience for others. You want people to be challenged, but also motivated enough to continue making efforts and growing. That doesn't happen when they're barraged with unreasonable Matches at the beginning of the competition just because everyone is in the same pool for the same Rewards.
My concern isn't for me at all. I'm fine with playing casually and getting a few thousand Shards now and then. Once again, the issue isn't just the Rewards, and quite frankly it's a little demeaning to keep reverting the subject back to that.
My concern isn't for me at all. I'm fine with playing casually and getting a few thousand Shards now and then. Once again, the issue isn't just the Rewards, and quite frankly it's a little demeaning to keep reverting the subject back to that.
Why do I feel like I’m trying to explain calculus to a potato?
Quite possibly because you're trying to justify the problem with the Rewards that you personally make in a Season, and the Rewards aren't the issue presented, much less can you speak to what everyone else is trying to accomplish.
My argument has never been the Rewards. It's the Matches themselves. Hence my suggestion to accommodate a more reasonable start. There's more to consider than just what Players are getting.
If not for rewards, what are the people playing for? Whether it’s bigger or smaller account, everyone is playing for rewards to a large extent.
Rewards are only one aspect of a competition or game mode. People are playing for them, for sure. They're also playing to participate in the game itself. The experience matters as well. There's a fine line between being competitive and ruining the experience for others. You want people to be challenged, but also motivated enough to continue making efforts and growing. That doesn't happen when they're barraged with unreasonable Matches at the beginning of the competition just because everyone is in the same pool for the same Rewards.
Take the victory tokens, alliance and solo rewards and just reward a profile picture to cross each tier. And you get a different profile picture depending on where you finish in the GC. Let’s see how long the game mode will last to provide players with the ‘experience’
My argument has never been the Rewards. It's the Matches themselves. Hence my suggestion to accommodate a more reasonable start. There's more to consider than just what Players are getting.
If not for rewards, what are the people playing for? Whether it’s bigger or smaller account, everyone is playing for rewards to a large extent.
Rewards are only one aspect of a competition or game mode. People are playing for them, for sure. They're also playing to participate in the game itself. The experience matters as well. There's a fine line between being competitive and ruining the experience for others. You want people to be challenged, but also motivated enough to continue making efforts and growing. That doesn't happen when they're barraged with unreasonable Matches at the beginning of the competition just because everyone is in the same pool for the same Rewards.
Take the victory tokens, alliance and solo rewards and just reward a profile picture to cross each tier. And you get a different profile picture depending on where you finish in the GC. Let’s see how long the game mode will last to provide players with the ‘experience’
No one said anything about removing the Rewards. No one said the Rewards didn't matter either. What I'm talking about is ruining the experience of the people who made the argument to begin with when they were getting bashed by matchmaking manipulation. Their experience matters just as much as the experience of the people who are upset about their current progress. If you put everyone in the same pool from the start, all you have is a system that encourages one level of Player to play. Hence my arguments to have something balance things out in the beginning. All the Rewards in the game won't matter if people are just discouraged from playing in the first few Tiers. It's not that unheard of to want people to be enticed enough to make an effort. Rewards alone aren't enough when the Matches are so unreasonable they have no way of winning them. You let them work their way up to that point, and over time, Season after Season, they progress. You don't just make it a one-way track for the top to get all they want.
My argument has never been the Rewards. It's the Matches themselves. Hence my suggestion to accommodate a more reasonable start. There's more to consider than just what Players are getting.
If not for rewards, what are the people playing for? Whether it’s bigger or smaller account, everyone is playing for rewards to a large extent.
Rewards are only one aspect of a competition or game mode. People are playing for them, for sure. They're also playing to participate in the game itself. The experience matters as well. There's a fine line between being competitive and ruining the experience for others. You want people to be challenged, but also motivated enough to continue making efforts and growing. That doesn't happen when they're barraged with unreasonable Matches at the beginning of the competition just because everyone is in the same pool for the same Rewards.
If it's just for the experience, than what's it matter if someone wins or loses?
Personally, I suck at golf, but I enjoy the experience. I never expect to win though, but I don't complain when I don't, and it's never made me consider stopping.
It matters because not everyone wants to participate in something that you get pummeled at the start, and have to wait until the 4th week to get anywhere. That's not a pleasant experience to have. It's also not fair. I know we use fair as a ubiquitous term here, but I'm pretty sure we all know what I'm talking about.
My concern isn't for me at all. I'm fine with playing casually and getting a few thousand Shards now and then. Once again, the issue isn't just the Rewards, and quite frankly it's a little demeaning to keep reverting the subject back to that.
Why do I feel like I’m trying to explain calculus to a potato?
Dr. Zola
No, just someone who will argue that lower-level players getting rewards slower than end gamers will kill their progress and in the next post say that that the rewards don't matter and he's never argued about the rewards.
Context. It's a wonderful thing. I've talked about progress and how in most games, Players progress faster earlier on, plateau, then slow down. That's necessary for anyone to be able to progress from the start. I said my objectives in discussing this issue have never been for "Players to get easy Rewards", because my concern isn't some end-goal of giving anyone free Rewards. I said Rewards won't matter if people (namely lower Players) are edged out of even wanting to play at all. All the Rewards they COULD get won't matter if they can't get past the gate and give up trying. Context.
Context. It's a wonderful thing. I've talked about progress and how in most games, Players progress faster earlier on, plateau, then slow down. That's necessary for anyone to be able to progress from the start. I said my objectives in discussing this issue have never been for "Players to get easy Rewards", because my concern isn't some end-goal of giving anyone free Rewards. I said Rewards won't matter if people (namely lower Players) are edged out of even wanting to play at all. All the Rewards they COULD get won't matter if they can't get past the gate and give up trying. Context.
And once again, there are countless other modes for progressing.
Context. It's a wonderful thing. I've talked about progress and how in most games, Players progress faster earlier on, plateau, then slow down. That's necessary for anyone to be able to progress from the start. I said my objectives in discussing this issue have never been for "Players to get easy Rewards", because my concern isn't some end-goal of giving anyone free Rewards. I said Rewards won't matter if people (namely lower Players) are edged out of even wanting to play at all. All the Rewards they COULD get won't matter if they can't get past the gate and give up trying. Context.
And once again, there are countless other modes for progressing.
You're right. There's also this one. Which is why it's available to a range of Players and not just one level of progress.
True story. But no one should feel bad about someone diving into the deep end and drowning cause they never took the time to learn how to swim. That's precisely why it's called progression.
The entire competition isn't "the deep end". I have no idea why people consider it an exclusive piece of content for the top alone, but it's a good thing it isn't. If it was, the Paragons would be back here complaining they have to face their own Prestige like they are now.
Quite possibly because you're trying to justify the problem with the Rewards that you personally make in a Season, and the Rewards aren't the issue presented, much less can you speak to what everyone else is trying to accomplish.
I have zero problem with the rewards I earned this season or last. BGs is one of the most generous modes the game has ever seen. Three seasons ago, I didn’t make it to GC, and I still walked away with a ridiculous amount of BG currency.
Which is part of the point you missed above: that uber-generous level of rewards isn’t just reserved for the largest accounts. It doesn’t require non-stop grinding. Simply playing the mode regularly along with your alliance and winning just a little can still be ridiculously rewarding.
To my recollection, the only mode in which a player could face reduced competition in MCoC—and yet win the same reward as larger, veteran accounts—was when the beginner bracket of arenas existed. Even that bracket was time-limited to the age of a player’s account, and I’m not sure it is still around anymore.
Comments
I understand the game mode is competitive, but that doesn't mean issues are.
All I can gather from the number of comments you've made is that you don't think it's fair to have to fight others who are competing for the same rewards.
The ramifications of that have resulted in the situation that currently exists giving some accounts (lower strength) an easier path to higher rewards than that of stronger accounts.
So here is my statement, made crystal clear:
1) In a competitive mode, where everyone is vying for the same rewards, and one individual's placement has a direct impact on another's placement for said rewards, those individuals should be subject to fighting one another at any given point in time (VT and/or GC), it should be random.
2) If those weaker accounts take exception to a fair competition for the same pool of rewards, those folks should be isolated into their own lower brackets with lower reward distributions.
What is your stance?
A year ago, the ability to collect the kinds of prizes obtainable via that level of BG loot would have been incomprehensible for low-, mid-and some higher progression rosters. And yet…here it is for the taking. Just play the mode.
That’s one reason why I don’t really think it makes sense to bubble-wrap BGs too much.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're so polarized about this, but let me explain again.
It is entirely plausible to have a mechanic ensure a reasonable start for everyone and still meet the end-goal. Someone suggested having the current Matchmaking for the first 5 Tiers of the VT. I said I could get behind about half the Tiers, but I'm not steadfast on that. The main point is that SOMETHING allows Players to have a reasonable start, then progress takes over.
I do not support the largest Accounts pecking off the lowest ones at the onset of the competition. Nor am I supporting them having an easier path to the top. What I'm supporting is fairness for both sides.
Hence my comments about both issues being valid. Anyone who would reasonably dispute that is either confused about the concept, or expecting an easy path to the GC themselves. That would be the other side of the same coin.
I did some calculations for Platinum 3 vs everything, which was 59400 token vs 135900 tokens. Those calculations did not include the 48 hour objectives. We get four of those every two days (win one, win two, win three, participate in three), which means in a 30 day season there are potentially 60 of them. I think they are 200 tokens per, for a theoretical maximum of 12000 tokens from objectives.
If you really put your mind to it, even if you don't have a strong winning percentage you could reasonably be expected to earn something between 40,000 and 70,000 tokens for completing the objectives regularly and progressing to somewhere between Gold 3 and Platinum 2. YMMV for alliance rewards. The solo rewards are some amount of 6* shards; you'd expect such a player to grab at least half of them (~7500).
That’s good for decent prizes, given the scope of effort. I’d imagine an alliance of total noobs with even just 20 playing could match that score.
For me, that underscores how generous the prize levels are for BGs. For someone under 400K rating, for example, few if any modes reward like BGs do.
Dr. Zola
For example from Bronze3 to Silver2, or Silver1 maximum.
Bronze3 would have a strict Prestige matchmaking (matches within 0.5k Prestige difference), broaden up to 3k Prestige difference at Siver2/Silver1.
From Gold3 and above, random matchmaking within same tier.
That’s 5-6 VT tiers with protection for low accounts.
As it is now, is all 16 VT tiers.
That’s absurd for a competitive mode.
Proposals have been made.
Still, with less than two days remaining for the new season, no change or any announcement for matchmaking adjustments.
Seems like we will have to wait few seasons till Kabam takes action, as happened at AW.
Exact same story.
Added to whatever one gets from advancing through the tiers, even a high Gold or low Platinum player walks away with prizes that would have seemed highly generous not that long ago (because of the amount of items purchasable with the BG currencies in the BG store). He estimated a total of 40K-70K tokens earnable with just a mediocre performance in BGs over a season.
When we talk about how much easier smaller players need it to be to get to GC, it’s important to remember there are so many ways they get rewarded for playing BGs. Focusing only on GC as the goal misses the sheer volume of prizes able to be obtained via events and objectives along the way. I’m sitting on nearly 40K tokens right now and I feel like I’ve got a huge piggy bank.
Dr. Zola
If your concern is experiential, then there’s always the “compete against a friend” mode.
Dr. Zola
Dr. Zola
Personally, I suck at golf, but I enjoy the experience. I never expect to win though, but I don't complain when I don't, and it's never made me consider stopping.
I've talked about progress and how in most games, Players progress faster earlier on, plateau, then slow down. That's necessary for anyone to be able to progress from the start.
I said my objectives in discussing this issue have never been for "Players to get easy Rewards", because my concern isn't some end-goal of giving anyone free Rewards.
I said Rewards won't matter if people (namely lower Players) are edged out of even wanting to play at all. All the Rewards they COULD get won't matter if they can't get past the gate and give up trying.
Context.
Which is part of the point you missed above: that uber-generous level of rewards isn’t just reserved for the largest accounts. It doesn’t require non-stop grinding. Simply playing the mode regularly along with your alliance and winning just a little can still be ridiculously rewarding.
To my recollection, the only mode in which a player could face reduced competition in MCoC—and yet win the same reward as larger, veteran accounts—was when the beginner bracket of arenas existed. Even that bracket was time-limited to the age of a player’s account, and I’m not sure it is still around anymore.
Dr. Zola