Actually, that's the opposite of favoritism. Everyone is starting out with the same relatively-even Matches. No one is gaining more of an advantage. That's the whole point.
I mean, I support having something preventing manipulation and evening things out for Players starting out in the VT, but those are basically the Preliminaries. The GC is the actual race.
So you think a 100k account should be able to make it to GC by only matching similar accounts?
If they're good enough to beat the other 100k accounts, then yes I do.
You've done a complete 180 from last week when you literally posted that matches should not be based on prestige or pi.
I realised how many huge accounts there are out there. I can't compete with them in GC. So I suggested the only solution I can think of
Or you can grow your account. I only state the obvious based on a previous thread you made where you were looking for ways to lower your prestige for BG matchmaking, which would imp
On second thought, I'm doubling back. The definition of fair is: "impartial and just, without favoritism and discrimination". That's exactly what you have when you have a metric evening people out at the start. No one is being favored or discriminated against. People are starting out the same even way everyone else is. What you're suggesting is the opposite of a fair start. A system that favors the highest Accounts and creates a system that not only penalizes the lower ones, but inhibits them from weeks of potential progress.
I'm really trying to ignore you, but you just keep going and keep thinking you are making points but all I see at this point is blah blah blah.
But since you broke down the definition of "fair", first, when did Kabam EVER say BG was supposed to be fair? I and many others have asked them to clarify what they see as the primary purpose of BG (fair, skill, roster, etc) but never any answers. If they would answer, it could settle these endless arguments.
Second, your own definition of fair was impartial and just, without favoritism and discrimination. Fyi, your hurting your own arguments. By breaking up tiers such as gold 3 into invisible and unannounced groups only for matchmaking purposes is extremely favorable to the weaker rosters and segregating and/or discriminating stronger rosters into a harder path for same rewards as those given far more "favorable'" matches that the stronger rosters don't get.
You can twist words anyway you want as you commonly do, but your own definition of "fair" destroys your own argument. As this may seem fair to lower rosters but it is not fair to stronger rosters especially those in the middle or lower end of these invisible cutoffs of prestige within the tiers.
Fair doesn't need to be said. Fair has always been a goal with any content. While the goal posts change depending on the needs and the meta, that has always been at the background. Especially when it comes to competitive aspects. There's a reason they take action with egregious situations. There's a reason they talk about unsportsmanlike behavior and unfair advantages. There's a reason they alter things to ensure the contest isn't just mayhem. Quite honestly, anyone that can justify using Wins against UC Accounts as a Paragon in the first few Brackets of a competition has no idea what fair really is, as far as I'm concerned.
On second thought, I'm doubling back. The definition of fair is: "impartial and just, without favoritism and discrimination". That's exactly what you have when you have a metric evening people out at the start. No one is being favored or discriminated against. People are starting out the same even way everyone else is. What you're suggesting is the opposite of a fair start. A system that favors the highest Accounts and creates a system that not only penalizes the lower ones, but inhibits them from weeks of potential progress.
A metric that handicaps matchmaking for people at the start of competition based on account size or prestige is, quite literally, the opposite of something that is without favoritism or discrimination.
I don’t mind that you’ve found something to be passionate about—but I can’t be the only one who watches your tirade here and begins to think: I really don’t care what happens to smaller accounts in BGs anymore.
On second thought, I'm doubling back. The definition of fair is: "impartial and just, without favoritism and discrimination". That's exactly what you have when you have a metric evening people out at the start. No one is being favored or discriminated against. People are starting out the same even way everyone else is. What you're suggesting is the opposite of a fair start. A system that favors the highest Accounts and creates a system that not only penalizes the lower ones, but inhibits them from weeks of potential progress.
Your definition of fair is the exact opposite of your own definition of fair. Your definition of fair involves setting up match making so that lower progress people get the results you believe they deserve to have. That is the exact opposite of being impartial and without favoritism. You're saying left to their own devices, lower progress accounts would not fare as well as you think they should, so match making should account for this to generate the results you personally believe it should. That is putting your thumb on the scale.
The problem is that this is a results-driven definition of fairness instead of a competition driven definition of fairness. Most people's definition of fairness is everyone has the same opportunity to succeed, not that everyone has the same chance to succeed.
If the absolute definition of fairness is everyone has the same chance to succeed, why not resolve the matches by flipping a coin? That is the absolute limit of results-driven fairness. Everyone has the same chance to win. But that tilts the scale all the way to ludicrous levels of "fair" while completely eliminating the "competition" part of "fair competition." For BG to be a fair competition, it must still be a competition, and a competition must determine its winners by the activity of its competitors. It cannot decide how much of each kind of competitors should be winning and tilt the playing field to get the results it wants.
You, and (for the most part) only you, are advocating for a protected class of players, demanding special treatment for that protected class of players, and judging the competition based on what results your protected class of players generates. And then calling this "impartial" and any attempt to eliminate or even moderate these protections "favoritism." That goes beyond sandbagging and into the realm of gaslighting.
Fair doesn't need to be said. Fair has always been a goal with any content. While the goal posts change depending on the needs and the meta, that has always been at the background. Especially when it comes to competitive aspects. There's a reason they take action with egregious situations. There's a reason they talk about unsportsmanlike behavior and unfair advantages. There's a reason they alter things to ensure the contest isn't just mayhem. Quite honestly, anyone that can justify using Wins against UC Accounts as a Paragon in the first few Brackets of a competition has no idea what fair really is, as far as I'm concerned.
You should really just stop wasting your time with the same 8 persons that don't really want a balanced game mode for everyone but instead want an advantage so they can climb quicker (the irony, they're complaining lower players currently have an advantage but they want one too lol). If they really wanted balance they would be asking for different tiers or random matchmaking after a certain league in VT to prevent lower accounts from reaching GC before Paragons while still allowing them to actually play as soon as BGs start instead of having to wait a week or two for all Paragons and TBs to move up from Bronze. At this point it's just a waste of time and I doubt Kabam will listen to them anyways cause it would put lower players at a disadvantage once again after all the sandbagging from the first three seasons. Let them complain all they want lmao.
Fair doesn't need to be said. Fair has always been a goal with any content. While the goal posts change depending on the needs and the meta, that has always been at the background. Especially when it comes to competitive aspects. There's a reason they take action with egregious situations. There's a reason they talk about unsportsmanlike behavior and unfair advantages. There's a reason they alter things to ensure the contest isn't just mayhem. Quite honestly, anyone that can justify using Wins against UC Accounts as a Paragon in the first few Brackets of a competition has no idea what fair really is, as far as I'm concerned.
You should really just stop wasting your time with the same 8 persons that don't really want a balanced game mode for everyone but instead want an advantage so they can climb quicker (the irony, they're complaining lower players currently have an advantage but they want one too lol). If they really wanted balance they would be asking for different tiers or random matchmaking after a certain league in VT to prevent lower accounts from reaching GC before Paragons while still allowing them to actually play as soon as BGs start instead of having to wait a week or two for all Paragons and TBs to move up from Bronze. At this point it's just a waste of time and I doubt Kabam will listen to them anyways cause it would put lower players at a disadvantage once again after all the sandbagging from the first three seasons. Let them complain all they want lmao.
Well last time I saw you was when you posted sandbagging posts multiple times a day. The irony is back then you kept saying you wanted Kabam to make it to where prestige wasn't used in matchmaking and that you wanted everyone in that tier to be able to face each other.
On second thought, I'm doubling back. The definition of fair is: "impartial and just, without favoritism and discrimination". That's exactly what you have when you have a metric evening people out at the start. No one is being favored or discriminated against. People are starting out the same even way everyone else is. What you're suggesting is the opposite of a fair start. A system that favors the highest Accounts and creates a system that not only penalizes the lower ones, but inhibits them from weeks of potential progress.
Your definition of fair is the exact opposite of your own definition of fair. Your definition of fair involves setting up match making so that lower progress people get the results you believe they deserve to have. That is the exact opposite of being impartial and without favoritism. You're saying left to their own devices, lower progress accounts would not fare as well as you think they should, so match making should account for this to generate the results you personally believe it should. That is putting your thumb on the scale.
The problem is that this is a results-driven definition of fairness instead of a competition driven definition of fairness. Most people's definition of fairness is everyone has the same opportunity to succeed, not that everyone has the same chance to succeed.
If the absolute definition of fairness is everyone has the same chance to succeed, why not resolve the matches by flipping a coin? That is the absolute limit of results-driven fairness. Everyone has the same chance to win. But that tilts the scale all the way to ludicrous levels of "fair" while completely eliminating the "competition" part of "fair competition." For BG to be a fair competition, it must still be a competition, and a competition must determine its winners by the activity of its competitors. It cannot decide how much of each kind of competitors should be winning and tilt the playing field to get the results it wants.
You, and (for the most part) only you, are advocating for a protected class of players, demanding special treatment for that protected class of players, and judging the competition based on what results your protected class of players generates. And then calling this "impartial" and any attempt to eliminate or even moderate these protections "favoritism." That goes beyond sandbagging and into the realm of gaslighting.
What I'm advocating for is a fair start to the competition for everyone. I'm also not the only one who agrees with that. I'm just the most vocal.
I don't care how many times people claim such an advantage is gained by mediating the beginning Brackets, that is not the case. The opposite is true. It's preventing anyone from gaining such an unreasonable advantage until the results can take over.
Fair doesn't need to be said. Fair has always been a goal with any content. While the goal posts change depending on the needs and the meta, that has always been at the background. Especially when it comes to competitive aspects. There's a reason they take action with egregious situations. There's a reason they talk about unsportsmanlike behavior and unfair advantages. There's a reason they alter things to ensure the contest isn't just mayhem. Quite honestly, anyone that can justify using Wins against UC Accounts as a Paragon in the first few Brackets of a competition has no idea what fair really is, as far as I'm concerned.
You should really just stop wasting your time with the same 8 persons that don't really want a balanced game mode for everyone but instead want an advantage so they can climb quicker (the irony, they're complaining lower players currently have an advantage but they want one too lol). If they really wanted balance they would be asking for different tiers or random matchmaking after a certain league in VT to prevent lower accounts from reaching GC before Paragons while still allowing them to actually play as soon as BGs start instead of having to wait a week or two for all Paragons and TBs to move up from Bronze. At this point it's just a waste of time and I doubt Kabam will listen to them anyways cause it would put lower players at a disadvantage once again after all the sandbagging from the first three seasons. Let them complain all they want lmao.
Well last time I saw you was when you posted sandbagging posts multiple times a day. The irony is back then you kept saying you wanted Kabam to make it to where prestige wasn't used in matchmaking and that you wanted everyone in that tier to be able to face each other.
I knew you were full of it.
Aww you remembered me, I missed you too 🥴🤣
Didn't know we lived in a world where people weren't allowed to change their opinions on something. I do believe prestige shouldn't be used in matchmaking and it should be random, just not on bronze and silver for the reason I already explained, unless of course you want to straight up bulldoze every UC and Cav player. I was UC back when sandbagging was a thing, now I'm almost TB and I absolutely don't want lower players to be forced to wait a week or two for the big accounts to move up like I was forced to wait cause it's ridiculous and unfair, it's that simple.
Fair doesn't need to be said. Fair has always been a goal with any content. While the goal posts change depending on the needs and the meta, that has always been at the background. Especially when it comes to competitive aspects. There's a reason they take action with egregious situations. There's a reason they talk about unsportsmanlike behavior and unfair advantages. There's a reason they alter things to ensure the contest isn't just mayhem. Quite honestly, anyone that can justify using Wins against UC Accounts as a Paragon in the first few Brackets of a competition has no idea what fair really is, as far as I'm concerned.
You should really just stop wasting your time with the same 8 persons that don't really want a balanced game mode for everyone but instead want an advantage so they can climb quicker (the irony, they're complaining lower players currently have an advantage but they want one too lol). If they really wanted balance they would be asking for different tiers or random matchmaking after a certain league in VT to prevent lower accounts from reaching GC before Paragons while still allowing them to actually play as soon as BGs start instead of having to wait a week or two for all Paragons and TBs to move up from Bronze. At this point it's just a waste of time and I doubt Kabam will listen to them anyways cause it would put lower players at a disadvantage once again after all the sandbagging from the first three seasons. Let them complain all they want lmao.
Well last time I saw you was when you posted sandbagging posts multiple times a day. The irony is back then you kept saying you wanted Kabam to make it to where prestige wasn't used in matchmaking and that you wanted everyone in that tier to be able to face each other.
I knew you were full of it.
Aww you remembered me, I missed you too 🥴🤣
Didn't know we lived in a world where people weren't allowed to change their opinions on something. I do believe prestige shouldn't be used in matchmaking and it should be random, just not on bronze and silver for the reason I already explained, unless of course you want to straight up bulldoze every UC and Cav player. I was UC back when sandbagging was a thing, now I'm almost TB and I absolutely don't want lower players to be forced to wait a week or two for the big accounts to move up like I was forced to wait cause it's ridiculous and unfair, it's that simple.
Ultimately, it will be more than a week or two. Sometimes they won't even make any progress until the last week. Poop rolls downhill. You might as well not have a competition, and just line Accounts up by size. That will be the results.
Fair doesn't need to be said. Fair has always been a goal with any content. While the goal posts change depending on the needs and the meta, that has always been at the background. Especially when it comes to competitive aspects. There's a reason they take action with egregious situations. There's a reason they talk about unsportsmanlike behavior and unfair advantages. There's a reason they alter things to ensure the contest isn't just mayhem. Quite honestly, anyone that can justify using Wins against UC Accounts as a Paragon in the first few Brackets of a competition has no idea what fair really is, as far as I'm concerned.
You should really just stop wasting your time with the same 8 persons that don't really want a balanced game mode for everyone but instead want an advantage so they can climb quicker (the irony, they're complaining lower players currently have an advantage but they want one too lol). If they really wanted balance they would be asking for different tiers or random matchmaking after a certain league in VT to prevent lower accounts from reaching GC before Paragons while still allowing them to actually play as soon as BGs start instead of having to wait a week or two for all Paragons and TBs to move up from Bronze. At this point it's just a waste of time and I doubt Kabam will listen to them anyways cause it would put lower players at a disadvantage once again after all the sandbagging from the first three seasons. Let them complain all they want lmao.
Well last time I saw you was when you posted sandbagging posts multiple times a day. The irony is back then you kept saying you wanted Kabam to make it to where prestige wasn't used in matchmaking and that you wanted everyone in that tier to be able to face each other.
I knew you were full of it.
Aww you remembered me, I missed you too 🥴🤣
Didn't know we lived in a world where people weren't allowed to change their opinions on something. I do believe prestige shouldn't be used in matchmaking and it should be random, just not on bronze and silver for the reason I already explained, unless of course you want to straight up bulldoze every UC and Cav player. I was UC back when sandbagging was a thing, now I'm almost TB and I absolutely don't want lower players to be forced to wait a week or two for the big accounts to move up like I was forced to wait cause it's ridiculous and unfair, it's that simple.
Ultimately, it will be more than a week or two. Sometimes they won't even make any progress until the last week. Poop rolls downhill. You might as well not have a competition, and just line Accounts up by size. That will be the results.
Ehh you may be right, you may be wrong, who knows. Based on personal experience, 1-2 weeks is my guess, could be more but who knows (my whole deck back then was basically maxed out 4* and a few r4 5*).
Fair doesn't need to be said. Fair has always been a goal with any content. While the goal posts change depending on the needs and the meta, that has always been at the background. Especially when it comes to competitive aspects. There's a reason they take action with egregious situations. There's a reason they talk about unsportsmanlike behavior and unfair advantages. There's a reason they alter things to ensure the contest isn't just mayhem. Quite honestly, anyone that can justify using Wins against UC Accounts as a Paragon in the first few Brackets of a competition has no idea what fair really is, as far as I'm concerned.
You should really just stop wasting your time with the same 8 persons that don't really want a balanced game mode for everyone but instead want an advantage so they can climb quicker (the irony, they're complaining lower players currently have an advantage but they want one too lol). If they really wanted balance they would be asking for different tiers or random matchmaking after a certain league in VT to prevent lower accounts from reaching GC before Paragons while still allowing them to actually play as soon as BGs start instead of having to wait a week or two for all Paragons and TBs to move up from Bronze. At this point it's just a waste of time and I doubt Kabam will listen to them anyways cause it would put lower players at a disadvantage once again after all the sandbagging from the first three seasons. Let them complain all they want lmao.
Well last time I saw you was when you posted sandbagging posts multiple times a day. The irony is back then you kept saying you wanted Kabam to make it to where prestige wasn't used in matchmaking and that you wanted everyone in that tier to be able to face each other.
I knew you were full of it.
Aww you remembered me, I missed you too 🥴🤣
Didn't know we lived in a world where people weren't allowed to change their opinions on something. I do believe prestige shouldn't be used in matchmaking and it should be random, just not on bronze and silver for the reason I already explained, unless of course you want to straight up bulldoze every UC and Cav player. I was UC back when sandbagging was a thing, now I'm almost TB and I absolutely don't want lower players to be forced to wait a week or two for the big accounts to move up like I was forced to wait cause it's ridiculous and unfair, it's that simple.
Ultimately, it will be more than a week or two. Sometimes they won't even make any progress until the last week. Poop rolls downhill. You might as well not have a competition, and just line Accounts up by size. That will be the results.
Ehh you may be right, you may be wrong, who knows. Based on personal experience, 1-2 weeks is my guess, could be more but who knows (my whole deck back then was basically maxed out 4* and a few r4 5*).
All I'm suggesting is something to prevent the competition from grossly overpowering people from the onset. To be totally honest, some people think they have the right to overpower others, whether it's because of the Rewards or because they've invested into their Accounts longer. While that might have some validity when you see lower Accounts punching higher, I do not condone this at the start of the competition. That's not a fair shot for anyone who isn't immediately benefitting from it. My intentions can be misconstrued all they like. I believe I've been clear enough to be heard. That entitlement doesn't extend to being able to use weaker Accounts who obviously don't have any chance of winning just to get themselves out of the first few Brackets. I'm calling BS on the Rewards justification. I play that range by choice, and I have my fair share of losses just for what I take. There's no way those Rewards in that area are reason enough to justify massacring lower Players. It's asinine.
I don't care how many times people claim such an advantage is gained by mediating the beginning Brackets, that is not the case. The opposite is true. It's preventing anyone from gaining such an unreasonable advantage until the results can take over.
I didn’t knew having a big account is an “unreasonable” advantage. A big account is, and must remain an advantage, in order for the game to keep running. There is a reason some accounts are small and some are bigger. People with big accounts have spent more time or more money, in order to have big accounts and have that advantage. This advantage, can be obtained by any player. No one and nothing prohibits anyone, from building a big account and gain that advantage. And a big account it’s actually an advantage in any other area of the game, except VT where it’s mostly a disadvantage, as it is now. No one asked for special treatment, despite the fact lower accounts get it. People are asking for a blind matchmaking, that is not weighted or favouring anyone. And those same people, are generous enough to discuss giving a few Prestige matched VT tiers to lower players, in order to enter more smoothly the competition.
I don't care how many times people claim such an advantage is gained by mediating the beginning Brackets, that is not the case. The opposite is true. It's preventing anyone from gaining such an unreasonable advantage until the results can take over.
I didn’t knew having a big account is an “unreasonable” advantage. A big account is, and must remain an advantage, in order for the game to keep running. There is a reason some accounts are small and some are bigger. People with big accounts have spent more time or more money, in order to have big accounts and have that advantage. This advantage, can be obtained by any player. No one and nothing prohibits anyone, from building a big account and gain that advantage. And a big account it’s actually an advantage in any other area of the game, except VT where it’s mostly a disadvantage, as it is now. No one asked for special treatment, despite the fact lower accounts get it. People are asking for a blind matchmaking, that is not weighted or favouring anyone. And those same people, are generous enough to discuss giving a few Prestige matched VT tiers to lower players, in order to enter more smoothly the competition.
It's one thing to ask for a small advantage and another to ask for something that will completely screw over lower players for weeks (exactly what happened this last season only with the roles reversed). If you allow matchmaking to be completely random from the get go then you're gonna have all the low level accounts stuck in bronze for weeks. You think they're gonna be able to get a couple wins in a row without facing a single Paragon or TB? (Which is for obvious reasons an instant loss for them). Now if you make matchmaking completely random after they hit a certain league in VT, that's different, at that point everyone has had a chance to play some and advance so at that point the difficulty should indeed increase for lower players so they don't just get 20 wins in a row and into GC. Lol it's like some of you want the game to lean to one group instead of actually asking for balance so EVERYONE regardless of their level can enjoy the game mode, it's really sad.
Fair doesn't need to be said. Fair has always been a goal with any content. While the goal posts change depending on the needs and the meta, that has always been at the background. Especially when it comes to competitive aspects. There's a reason they take action with egregious situations. There's a reason they talk about unsportsmanlike behavior and unfair advantages. There's a reason they alter things to ensure the contest isn't just mayhem. Quite honestly, anyone that can justify using Wins against UC Accounts as a Paragon in the first few Brackets of a competition has no idea what fair really is, as far as I'm concerned.
You should really just stop wasting your time with the same 8 persons that don't really want a balanced game mode for everyone but instead want an advantage so they can climb quicker (the irony, they're complaining lower players currently have an advantage but they want one too lol). If they really wanted balance they would be asking for different tiers or random matchmaking after a certain league in VT to prevent lower accounts from reaching GC before Paragons while still allowing them to actually play as soon as BGs start instead of having to wait a week or two for all Paragons and TBs to move up from Bronze. At this point it's just a waste of time and I doubt Kabam will listen to them anyways cause it would put lower players at a disadvantage once again after all the sandbagging from the first three seasons. Let them complain all they want lmao.
Well last time I saw you was when you posted sandbagging posts multiple times a day. The irony is back then you kept saying you wanted Kabam to make it to where prestige wasn't used in matchmaking and that you wanted everyone in that tier to be able to face each other.
I knew you were full of it.
Aww you remembered me, I missed you too 🥴🤣
Didn't know we lived in a world where people weren't allowed to change their opinions on something. I do believe prestige shouldn't be used in matchmaking and it should be random, just not on bronze and silver for the reason I already explained, unless of course you want to straight up bulldoze every UC and Cav player. I was UC back when sandbagging was a thing, now I'm almost TB and I absolutely don't want lower players to be forced to wait a week or two for the big accounts to move up like I was forced to wait cause it's ridiculous and unfair, it's that simple.
Ultimately, it will be more than a week or two. Sometimes they won't even make any progress until the last week. Poop rolls downhill. You might as well not have a competition, and just line Accounts up by size. That will be the results.
Ehh you may be right, you may be wrong, who knows. Based on personal experience, 1-2 weeks is my guess, could be more but who knows (my whole deck back then was basically maxed out 4* and a few r4 5*).
All I'm suggesting is something to prevent the competition from grossly overpowering people from the onset. To be totally honest, some people think they have the right to overpower others, whether it's because of the Rewards or because they've invested into their Accounts longer. While that might have some validity when you see lower Accounts punching higher, I do not condone this at the start of the competition. That's not a fair shot for anyone who isn't immediately benefitting from it. My intentions can be misconstrued all they like. I believe I've been clear enough to be heard. That entitlement doesn't extend to being able to use weaker Accounts who obviously don't have any chance of winning just to get themselves out of the first few Brackets. I'm calling BS on the Rewards justification. I play that range by choice, and I have my fair share of losses just for what I take. There's no way those Rewards in that area are reason enough to justify massacring lower Players. It's asinine.
What, precisely, do you think the “Rewards justification” (as you call it) is?
Fair doesn't need to be said. Fair has always been a goal with any content.
So why wasn't your definition of fairness incorporated into EoP, Abyss, the Gauntlet, or any of the later acts in story mode?
Oh yeah....cause you're supposed to progress into that content. Not tackle it anytime you feel like it because you think it's fair.
Welcome to the game. Glad to have you.
If BGs were intended to be end-game content like the ones you listed, they wouldn't be available to UC-Paragon. Nice try.
The fact that they're disagreeing with this even though it's a logical counter argument. I don't normally agree with the stuff you say but at this point it seems like they're just spamming and replying just for the sake of spamming and replying, not because they want battlegrounds to be a balanced game mode everyone can enjoy. This whole thread went from unpopular opinion to let's just keep replying and spamming disagrees cause it's GroundedWisdom lmao.
Anything that disincentivizes rankups and roster growth/improvement is objectively wrong and bad game design. Period.
I would prefer staggered starts based on progression (bronze UC, silver Cav, and gold TB/P) with lower level rank rewards being mailed at season kickoff. That means if you’re paragon and start right away, it’s all TB/P players. If you wait or start slow, some cavs or UCs might sneak in.
Alternatively, matchmaking should be truly random strictly by tier (bronze etc). Just like war, roster and skill determine the outcome. Great skill CAN overcome a weaker roster.
Finally, as I keep begging, reduce the loss penalty. Double the medals needed to advance (or 2->3, 3->5) and do two for a win, minus one for a loss.
Anything that disincentivizes rankups and roster growth/improvement is objectively wrong and bad game design. Period.
I would prefer staggered starts based on progression (bronze UC, silver Cav, and gold TB/P) with lower level rank rewards being mailed at season kickoff. That means if you’re paragon and start right away, it’s all TB/P players. If you wait or start slow, some cavs or UCs might sneak in.
Alternatively, matchmaking should be truly random strictly by tier (bronze etc). Just like war, roster and skill determine the outcome. Great skill CAN overcome a weaker roster.
Finally, as I keep begging, reduce the loss penalty. Double the medals needed to advance (or 2->3, 3->5) and do two for a win, minus one for a loss.
A corral start (or wave start) is an interesting concept to try with BGs—if that’s what you mean. But I’m unsure how the automatic prize grants to larger accounts would be received by some of the players who want *equitable* chances at prizes.
Anything that disincentivizes rankups and roster growth/improvement is objectively wrong and bad game design. Period.
I would prefer staggered starts based on progression (bronze UC, silver Cav, and gold TB/P) with lower level rank rewards being mailed at season kickoff. That means if you’re paragon and start right away, it’s all TB/P players. If you wait or start slow, some cavs or UCs might sneak in.
Alternatively, matchmaking should be truly random strictly by tier (bronze etc). Just like war, roster and skill determine the outcome. Great skill CAN overcome a weaker roster.
Finally, as I keep begging, reduce the loss penalty. Double the medals needed to advance (or 2->3, 3->5) and do two for a win, minus one for a loss.
A corral start (or wave start) is an interesting concept to try with BGs—if that’s what you mean. But I’m unsure how the automatic prize grants to larger accounts would be received by some of the players who want *equitable* chances at prizes.
Dr. Zola
For anyone that's getting to GC within the first week or even two weeks every season, those early Bronze-Gold tokens are basically auto grants already. All starting those people at the beginning each season does is make it even harder for people that struggle in the beginning or even all season.
I've been opposed to how matchmaking has been set up from the beginning. That's not bc I personally want easier matches, I'm not remotely struggling as it is, but bc I just genuinely don't think the current set up is even slightly "fair" or good for the mode.
I've been opposed to how matchmaking has been set up from the beginning. That's not bc I personally want easier matches, I'm not remotely struggling as it is, but bc I just genuinely don't think the current set up is even slightly "fair" or good for the mode.
Absolutely. It just makes it more grindy for the top.
Anything that disincentivizes rankups and roster growth/improvement is objectively wrong and bad game design. Period.
I would prefer staggered starts based on progression (bronze UC, silver Cav, and gold TB/P) with lower level rank rewards being mailed at season kickoff. That means if you’re paragon and start right away, it’s all TB/P players. If you wait or start slow, some cavs or UCs might sneak in.
Alternatively, matchmaking should be truly random strictly by tier (bronze etc). Just like war, roster and skill determine the outcome. Great skill CAN overcome a weaker roster.
Finally, as I keep begging, reduce the loss penalty. Double the medals needed to advance (or 2->3, 3->5) and do two for a win, minus one for a loss.
That's even worse on the entitlement scale. Start everyone at a lower point, and automatic Rewards? Now THAT is wanting something for less.
Anything that disincentivizes rankups and roster growth/improvement is objectively wrong and bad game design. Period.
I would prefer staggered starts based on progression (bronze UC, silver Cav, and gold TB/P) with lower level rank rewards being mailed at season kickoff. That means if you’re paragon and start right away, it’s all TB/P players. If you wait or start slow, some cavs or UCs might sneak in.
Alternatively, matchmaking should be truly random strictly by tier (bronze etc). Just like war, roster and skill determine the outcome. Great skill CAN overcome a weaker roster.
Finally, as I keep begging, reduce the loss penalty. Double the medals needed to advance (or 2->3, 3->5) and do two for a win, minus one for a loss.
That's even worse on the entitlement scale. Start everyone at a lower point, and automatic Rewards? Now THAT is wanting something for less.
I don't get how you can be against this. If this was implemented lower accounts wouldn't get demotivated or halted to progress (like you argued earlier in the thread) because there simply wouldn't be bigger accounts in bronze. They would only meet them at silver/gold.
Btw not start everyone at a lower point, start lower accounts at a lower point. As it is for me and I guess most paragons I never struggle in bronze/silver anyway.
Anything that disincentivizes rankups and roster growth/improvement is objectively wrong and bad game design. Period.
I would prefer staggered starts based on progression (bronze UC, silver Cav, and gold TB/P) with lower level rank rewards being mailed at season kickoff. That means if you’re paragon and start right away, it’s all TB/P players. If you wait or start slow, some cavs or UCs might sneak in.
Alternatively, matchmaking should be truly random strictly by tier (bronze etc). Just like war, roster and skill determine the outcome. Great skill CAN overcome a weaker roster.
Finally, as I keep begging, reduce the loss penalty. Double the medals needed to advance (or 2->3, 3->5) and do two for a win, minus one for a loss.
That's even worse on the entitlement scale. Start everyone at a lower point, and automatic Rewards? Now THAT is wanting something for less.
I don't get how you can be against this. If this was implemented lower accounts wouldn't get demotivated or halted to progress (like you argued earlier in the thread) because there simply wouldn't be bigger accounts in bronze. They would only meet them at silver/gold.
Btw not start everyone at a lower point, start lower accounts at a lower point. As it is for me and I guess most paragons I never struggle in bronze/silver anyway.
Let me get this straight. The argument is that a system that provides even Matches at the start of the competition is unfair because they're getting "easy Rewards". Yet the suggestion is to a) make them work 3 times as hard because they not only have to fight their way up but also start lower than anyone else, and b) the people above them get free Rewards just for starting the competition. I'm against it because that's even more unreasonable than pecking them off in Bronze.
Comments
Do you honestly not recognize that what you just wrote contradicts the point you've been failing to make.
".....without favoritism"
YOU are suggesting something should be done for a particular class of participants that isn't done for all.
THAT'S FAVORITISM!!!!!
But since you broke down the definition of "fair", first, when did Kabam EVER say BG was supposed to be fair? I and many others have asked them to clarify what they see as the primary purpose of BG (fair, skill, roster, etc) but never any answers. If they would answer, it could settle these endless arguments.
Second, your own definition of fair was impartial and just, without favoritism and discrimination. Fyi, your hurting your own arguments. By breaking up tiers such as gold 3 into invisible and unannounced groups only for matchmaking purposes is extremely favorable to the weaker rosters and segregating and/or discriminating stronger rosters into a harder path for same rewards as those given far more "favorable'" matches that the stronger rosters don't get.
You can twist words anyway you want as you commonly do, but your own definition of "fair" destroys your own argument. As this may seem fair to lower rosters but it is not fair to stronger rosters especially those in the middle or lower end of these invisible cutoffs of prestige within the tiers.
I don’t mind that you’ve found something to be passionate about—but I can’t be the only one who watches your tirade here and begins to think: I really don’t care what happens to smaller accounts in BGs anymore.
Dr. Zola
The problem is that this is a results-driven definition of fairness instead of a competition driven definition of fairness. Most people's definition of fairness is everyone has the same opportunity to succeed, not that everyone has the same chance to succeed.
If the absolute definition of fairness is everyone has the same chance to succeed, why not resolve the matches by flipping a coin? That is the absolute limit of results-driven fairness. Everyone has the same chance to win. But that tilts the scale all the way to ludicrous levels of "fair" while completely eliminating the "competition" part of "fair competition." For BG to be a fair competition, it must still be a competition, and a competition must determine its winners by the activity of its competitors. It cannot decide how much of each kind of competitors should be winning and tilt the playing field to get the results it wants.
You, and (for the most part) only you, are advocating for a protected class of players, demanding special treatment for that protected class of players, and judging the competition based on what results your protected class of players generates. And then calling this "impartial" and any attempt to eliminate or even moderate these protections "favoritism." That goes beyond sandbagging and into the realm of gaslighting.
At this point it's just a waste of time and I doubt Kabam will listen to them anyways cause it would put lower players at a disadvantage once again after all the sandbagging from the first three seasons. Let them complain all they want lmao.
I knew you were full of it.
Didn't know we lived in a world where people weren't allowed to change their opinions on something.
I do believe prestige shouldn't be used in matchmaking and it should be random, just not on bronze and silver for the reason I already explained, unless of course you want to straight up bulldoze every UC and Cav player. I was UC back when sandbagging was a thing, now I'm almost TB and I absolutely don't want lower players to be forced to wait a week or two for the big accounts to move up like I was forced to wait cause it's ridiculous and unfair, it's that simple.
A big account is, and must remain an advantage, in order for the game to keep running.
There is a reason some accounts are small and some are bigger.
People with big accounts have spent more time or more money, in order to have big accounts and have that advantage.
This advantage, can be obtained by any player.
No one and nothing prohibits anyone, from building a big account and gain that advantage.
And a big account it’s actually an advantage in any other area of the game, except VT where it’s mostly a disadvantage, as it is now.
No one asked for special treatment, despite the fact lower accounts get it.
People are asking for a blind matchmaking, that is not weighted or favouring anyone.
And those same people, are generous enough to discuss giving a few Prestige matched VT tiers to lower players, in order to enter more smoothly the competition.
Lol it's like some of you want the game to lean to one group instead of actually asking for balance so EVERYONE regardless of their level can enjoy the game mode, it's really sad.
Dr. Zola
Oh yeah....cause you're supposed to progress into that content. Not tackle it anytime you feel like it because you think it's fair.
Welcome to the game. Glad to have you.
I would prefer staggered starts based on progression (bronze UC, silver Cav, and gold TB/P) with lower level rank rewards being mailed at season kickoff. That means if you’re paragon and start right away, it’s all TB/P players. If you wait or start slow, some cavs or UCs might sneak in.
Alternatively, matchmaking should be truly random strictly by tier (bronze etc). Just like war, roster and skill determine the outcome. Great skill CAN overcome a weaker roster.
Finally, as I keep begging, reduce the loss penalty. Double the medals needed to advance (or 2->3, 3->5) and do two for a win, minus one for a loss.
Dr. Zola
Btw not start everyone at a lower point, start lower accounts at a lower point. As it is for me and I guess most paragons I never struggle in bronze/silver anyway.
I'm against it because that's even more unreasonable than pecking them off in Bronze.