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
I have a few thoughts here.
1) bronze and silver award just under 10,000 total tokens iirc. Even at paragon, that’s not earth shattering. Most of these accounts bank that quickly anyway. If that doesn’t feel right, incorporate these rewards into solo milestones or something.
2) it incentivizes story progression for newer players. They shouldn’t be charging into battlegrounds repeatedly until they hit a talent/roster wall. They should be getting cavalier and building their roster.
3) removing paragon and TB players from the bronze and silver pools will make it easier for uncollected players to fight their way out. And again, if that’s too much, start TB/P in silver 3 and UC/Cav in bronze. Many players sit out early days of the season because of the number of grinders rushing to GC dealing out beatdowns.
Now this is something I can agree with and I believe would be one of the best solutions. Start each player on a different league based on their progression and of course random matchmaking from the get go, the lower accounts don't have to face big accounts from the get go and everyone can enjoy battlegrounds. That was really my only concern with random matchmaking for everyone regardless of league.
Conveniently giving people an automatic boost up the ladder with Rewards just for starting. How altruistic.
You do realize that smaller accounts would then only be fighting smaller accounts and have more fairness in their early matches. Do you prefer the current system where a Cav or UC could match a paragon in bronze?
A staggered start would be much more fair so the biggest accounts aren't being matched against smaller accounts right at the beginning of every season crushing the morale of the smaller accounts.
Whether he admits it or not, his position basically amounts to putting weaker accounts on a separate track—at least through most of VT if not part of GC. That approach would keep larger accounts struggling against each other to get out of Bronze and Silver, while smaller accounts could scoot into higher tiers (and higher rewards) without facing larger competitors.
At some point, he presumably would have everyone converge—at which stage larger accounts would get the relief of weaker competition and weaker accounts would hit the wall.
His premise, as far as I can tell, is that he cares more for the experience than the rewards in BGs. But rewarding larger accounts the initial tier prizes along with a staggered start in order to create a better experience for smaller accounts isn’t acceptable because he thinks that creates entitlement for the larger accounts and unfairness to the weaker accounts.
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.
It has been a while, so I will repeat the suggestion I tossed out a while ago (back in season one, I think).
2-0 Match victory awards two points (trophies) 2-1 Match victory awards one point 1-2 Match loss awards no points 0-2 Match loss costs one point
This kind of scoring a) propels the best of the best out of VC and into GC quicker, where they are supposed to be anyway, b) encourages players to fight for every win, because even one win out of three helps, and c) lowers the chance of sliding backwards and thus reduces the amount of frustration over lost progress. Under this system you'd probably need to increase the trophies required for progress per tier by at least one, maybe two when you get to upper Diamond and Vibranium.
As to staggered starts, the complicating factor is participation. We cannot give gigantic BG rewards to players who don't actually fight, regardless of progress tier. Instead, for practical reasons, if we start a Paragon player in, say, Gold, then instead of mailing them the rewards at start up, we would need to give them a set of milestone rewards they would need to earn by actually participating. They could be essentially doubling up on rewards as they play, by earning the normal BG rewards and these other "start up" rewards for the same play, but they can't get the rewards for nothing.
For previous iterations of bgs I imagine Kabam used an unfiltered match maker and discovered players below a certain level wouldn’t participate after x matches; this is also likely evidenced once these now filtered players reach GC.
Given that, anyone thinking they are being harmed by match making denying their ability to match/compete against these players are missing the fact that those players wouldn’t be participating if match making worked the way you think it should work.
VT is similar to a playground, and y’all demanding the 12 year olds play sports against the 7 year olds; no one has fun or benefits from those situations, well except those who can’t stand to lose.
For previous iterations of bgs I imagine Kabam used an unfiltered match maker and discovered players below a certain level wouldn’t participate after x matches; this is also likely evidenced once these now filtered players reach GC.
Given that, anyone thinking they are being harmed by match making denying their ability to match/compete against these players are missing the fact that those players wouldn’t be participating if match making worked the way you think it should work.
VT is similar to a playground, and y’all demanding the 12 year olds play sports against the 7 year olds; no one has fun or benefits from those situations, well except those who can’t stand to lose.
That was exactly my concern, with reference to the lack of interest in War. No one is going to want to play when they're getting greatly overpowered in the first couple Tiers. For some reason, that point seems to be ignored because they think it's an injustice to not have the ability to use their Losses as propulsion. It's a self-serving perspective.
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.
It has been a while, so I will repeat the suggestion I tossed out a while ago (back in season one, I think).
2-0 Match victory awards two points (trophies) 2-1 Match victory awards one point 1-2 Match loss awards no points 0-2 Match loss costs one point
This kind of scoring a) propels the best of the best out of VC and into GC quicker, where they are supposed to be anyway, b) encourages players to fight for every win, because even one win out of three helps, and c) lowers the chance of sliding backwards and thus reduces the amount of frustration over lost progress. Under this system you'd probably need to increase the trophies required for progress per tier by at least one, maybe two when you get to upper Diamond and Vibranium.
As to staggered starts, the complicating factor is participation. We cannot give gigantic BG rewards to players who don't actually fight, regardless of progress tier. Instead, for practical reasons, if we start a Paragon player in, say, Gold, then instead of mailing them the rewards at start up, we would need to give them a set of milestone rewards they would need to earn by actually participating. They could be essentially doubling up on rewards as they play, by earning the normal BG rewards and these other "start up" rewards for the same play, but they can't get the rewards for nothing.
You’re probably right about “day 1 rewards” being a bit of a problem. I play another game that offers them but they’re negligible compared to these. There’s a way to distribute those elsewhere, though.
For example, give players an objective based on progression for reaching one or more milestones for participation in the season. “Score 70,000 points in the battlegrounds solo event.” Then, assign rewards based on progression title. It doesn’t interfere with rankings for the season solo event. It still allows for the staggered start/shorter progression tracks.
And I’m absolutely fine with your -1, 0, 1, 2 plan. I think it accomplishes much the same thing Im trying to fix.
On an unrelated note, I’ll continue to ignore any EarthlyIntelligence who wants to rant about privileged paragons. None of us should rake unserious people seriously.
For previous iterations of bgs I imagine Kabam used an unfiltered match maker and discovered players below a certain level wouldn’t participate after x matches; this is also likely evidenced once these now filtered players reach GC.
I know this was a concern. The objective rewards are there in part to encourage participation beyond progress. It is important to note that this is not a problem that can be solved by the VT match maker directly, because GC works by ELO. Any player who only progresses through VT via "fair" matches eventually stalls in GC and then drops out of participation. So the only question is when they drop out, not if they drop out, for players who decide to drop out the moment they hit a progress wall.
Given that, anyone thinking they are being harmed by match making denying their ability to match/compete against these players are missing the fact that those players wouldn’t be participating if match making worked the way you think it should work.
VT is similar to a playground, and y’all demanding the 12 year olds play sports against the 7 year olds; no one has fun or benefits from those situations, well except those who can’t stand to lose.
This isn't the problem. Or rather, this is the converse of the problem. The problem is not that higher progress players are not being "allowed" to match against lower progress players. The problem is lower progress players are being allowed to scoop up a huge chunk of rewards through a much easier path than many if not most high progress players. That's intrinsically unfair. And it would be prejudicial to be worried about the lower progress players who might quit if their competitive path was made harder, and not be worried about the higher progress players already facing identical hardships. What if they quit? They are currently matching against someone, and those someones would no longer get those wins. Every "loser" (someone with a low in percentage) who quits makes things harder on everyone else, regardless of their progress tier.
VT is a much more participatory tier of Battlegrounds to be sure. I actually advocated strongly for the game mode to include concessions to participation from the closed beta. I went so far as to say the game mode was doomed if it did not do that. However, the current system is completely upside down. It is far easier for me to earn rewards on my Cav account than my Paragon account. If enough Paragon players figure this out and decide that when they "hit the wall" with their mains they should just switch to a lower alt and beat up the kids on the playground, you'll have the same situation. An alt in BG is like a shell in AW, only a perfectly legal shell that Kabam can do nothing about.
More than perhaps any other player, I'm aware of the danger of advocating for a fix for the match maker issues. I was the loudest voice on the other side of the fence when the game mode was still in its early stages. I know what a participatory death spiral looks like in turnstile game modes, and I strongly encouraged the devs to take that threat as seriously as possible from the beginning. But this? This is just too much for me.
I do not envy the devs navigating this balancing act. But that does not mean that were I in charge I would not act immediately.
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.
It has been a while, so I will repeat the suggestion I tossed out a while ago (back in season one, I think).
2-0 Match victory awards two points (trophies) 2-1 Match victory awards one point 1-2 Match loss awards no points 0-2 Match loss costs one point
This kind of scoring a) propels the best of the best out of VC and into GC quicker, where they are supposed to be anyway, b) encourages players to fight for every win, because even one win out of three helps, and c) lowers the chance of sliding backwards and thus reduces the amount of frustration over lost progress. Under this system you'd probably need to increase the trophies required for progress per tier by at least one, maybe two when you get to upper Diamond and Vibranium.
As to staggered starts, the complicating factor is participation. We cannot give gigantic BG rewards to players who don't actually fight, regardless of progress tier. Instead, for practical reasons, if we start a Paragon player in, say, Gold, then instead of mailing them the rewards at start up, we would need to give them a set of milestone rewards they would need to earn by actually participating. They could be essentially doubling up on rewards as they play, by earning the normal BG rewards and these other "start up" rewards for the same play, but they can't get the rewards for nothing.
You’re probably right about “day 1 rewards” being a bit of a problem. I play another game that offers them but they’re negligible compared to these. There’s a way to distribute those elsewhere, though.
For example, give players an objective based on progression for reaching one or more milestones for participation in the season. “Score 70,000 points in the battlegrounds solo event.” Then, assign rewards based on progression title. It doesn’t interfere with rankings for the season solo event. It still allows for the staggered start/shorter progression tracks.
That is essentially what I was suggesting with "milestone rewards" just with a slightly different nomenclature. The mechanism is a bit different, but the idea is the same as the one you appear to be thinking of.
What are we talking about here? An even Matchmaking process within the first 2 or 3 Tiers. I'd like to know how that gives lower Players easier Rewards when they're going to level out either way. The fact is, and I'm going to say it, the issue is greed. People are so dead-set on Rewards that they refuse to see any other aspect to the problem. For what? The first couple of Brackets in the competition. I'm sorry, but that's a fair start. You're fighting the people within your own range, and if you can't advance with that, you have no argument for being able to compete at a higher level. So what if lower Players have some small amount of success at the beginning and feel incentivized to keep trying? Why is this such an issue? I'll tell you why, greed. There's a point where competitiveness becomes greed, and it ruins the competition for a good many people, save for the ones who are benefitting. It's the same greed that motivated Tanking and Sandbagging, and even Modding. Different forms, same thing. We're arguing at how unfair it is to have the results of an even Match at the beginning of a competition because they're having an "easier time at the Rewards". Bull****. We're arguing people trying to keep anyone lower than them from making any progress at all because there are Rewards at stake. That's not competition. That's greed. They're going to have to face random Matches and most likely be defeated either way, but expecting them to start off facing the highest Accounts in the game mode is NOT a "fair system". It's one that caters to people who are already going to have more success inherently, and making it about the Rewards just displays the real problem is the unhealthy greed for the Rewards that leads to a number of issues. I've said my piece. I'm not sitting back and saying nothing. We all know full well what fair is and what fair is not and it's not changed because of any payout when it's just plain wrong.
What are we talking about here? An even Matchmaking process within the first 2 or 3 Tiers.
Some of us *are* talking about exactly that. However, you keep saying other things besides that, then try to claim the things you're saying are not the point of what you're saying and also you didn't actually say them and also why should anyone care about what you said when they should be focused on what you said instead.
Even when people directly confront you and ask you for a specific suggestion on what you would do, you don't say "I would like the match making system to match players against other players roughly their progression level in Bronze and Silver, before matching them against everyone else in higher tiers." Instead, you say something like I'm not suggesting anything I'm just saying everyone else is wrong and I will continue to say that because we all know I'm right even if no one else will admit it because they are all greedy bastards who hate other players.
When given an opportunity to clarify your position, you use that opportunity to editorialize about everyone else's position. You can't back track from that and claim all you're saying is X, when that's literally the only thing you consistently fail to state. You are not only trying to say X. Your predominant purpose is to comment on how everyone else is wrong. Which is your prerogative, but then expect the inevitable response.
I've been abundantly clear about what I'm saying is, what my position is, what my concern is. I've made suggestions in this Thread, which have been presented by other people, and I agree with. I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind more, but I'm not dead-set on it. The idea is SOMETHING regulates the Matches for the start. Something prevents people from being bashed about before they even get a chance to have a start. Something prevents others from gaining unfair advantages in other ways, like we've seen. I have no idea how many more words I can use to explain what I would like to see, but feel free to misconstrue my thoughts into being about Rewards, or giving lower Players a leg up, or whatever other twist you see fit to make. If I were any clearer after pages and pages of explaining my points, I'd be Windex. I want people to have a reasonable start to the competition. Not just a farce of a pecking order that tickles the top Players and stops anyone else from getting into the activity itself. That kind of self-serving perspective has been executed before, and people scarcely care if they play that mode or not, unless they're the only ones getting anywhere. You can interpret that however many ways you like. I know what I said. I know what I mean. I know what I'm standing for. Period.
I'd say I've been more than reasonable and willing to compromise with my ideas, considering my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC. If you can't win Matches within your own Prestige, you don't deserve to have an advantage over others for having a bigger Account. However, I have done my best to be respectful to all aspects of the issue. My main points have been outlined. People shouldn't be thrown in willy-nilly from the beginning. That's all I have to say.
I've been abundantly clear about what I'm saying is, what my position is, what my concern is. I've made suggestions in this Thread, which have been presented by other people, and I agree with. I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind more, but I'm not dead-set on it. The idea is SOMETHING regulates the Matches for the start. Something prevents people from being bashed about before they even get a chance to have a start. Something prevents others from gaining unfair advantages in other ways, like we've seen. I have no idea how many more words I can use to explain what I would like to see, but feel free to misconstrue my thoughts into being about Rewards, or giving lower Players a leg up, or whatever other twist you see fit to make. If I were any clearer after pages and pages of explaining my points, I'd be Windex. I want people to have a reasonable start to the competition. Not just a farce of a pecking order that tickles the top Players and stops anyone else from getting into the activity itself. That kind of self-serving perspective has been executed before, and people scarcely care if they play that mode or not, unless they're the only ones getting anywhere. You can interpret that however many ways you like. I know what I said. I know what I mean. I know what I'm standing for. Period.
The problem is, and this is important on a discussion forum, no one else does.
So let's simplify. Yes or no. If the Battlegrounds match maker matched players at the start of the season based primarily on roster strength, but as the player advanced through the Victory track tiers the game shifted from matching primarily on roster strength to primarily matching on ELO (win/loss rating), then, for some negotiable Victory track tier in the middle of the Victory circuit, would you consider that to be fair to all players, or at least reasonable grounds upon which to build a fair match making system?
Either you believe this is fair, or you do not believe this is fair. You could settle this with a simple answer.
I've been abundantly clear about what I'm saying is, what my position is, what my concern is. I've made suggestions in this Thread, which have been presented by other people, and I agree with. I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind more, but I'm not dead-set on it. The idea is SOMETHING regulates the Matches for the start. Something prevents people from being bashed about before they even get a chance to have a start. Something prevents others from gaining unfair advantages in other ways, like we've seen. I have no idea how many more words I can use to explain what I would like to see, but feel free to misconstrue my thoughts into being about Rewards, or giving lower Players a leg up, or whatever other twist you see fit to make. If I were any clearer after pages and pages of explaining my points, I'd be Windex. I want people to have a reasonable start to the competition. Not just a farce of a pecking order that tickles the top Players and stops anyone else from getting into the activity itself. That kind of self-serving perspective has been executed before, and people scarcely care if they play that mode or not, unless they're the only ones getting anywhere. You can interpret that however many ways you like. I know what I said. I know what I mean. I know what I'm standing for. Period.
The problem is, and this is important on a discussion forum, no one else does.
So let's simplify. Yes or no. If the Battlegrounds match maker matched players at the start of the season based primarily on roster strength, but as the player advanced through the Victory track tiers the game shifted from matching primarily on roster strength to primarily matching on ELO (win/loss rating), then, for some negotiable Victory track tier in the middle of the Victory circuit, would you consider that to be fair to all players, or at least reasonable grounds upon which to build a fair match making system?
Either you believe this is fair, or you do not believe this is fair. You could settle this with a simple answer.
Yes. I do. Certainly more fair than playing for a suspected 2 weeks or more getting nowhere at all because the Accounts vastly overpower you. There's a fine line between making something competitive and eroding the desire to play at all. Once you cross that line, it's a long time for people to trickle back in. I believe we've seen this already. That applies for every Player playing. The progress arc of success to a point of not being able to move past it can't happen. That's a natural process. So I say, if you're telling people to wait until they're big boys to have a valid concern, how long do you expect to keep them in the pool? This isn't only harmful to their desire to play it. It also affects the matchmaking, as well as anyone else looking to fight them. There's a line. Overkilling them at the door is that line.
So let's pretend for a moment that the lower prestige accounts only get matched against comparative accounts for the first 3 tiers.
How long will it be before the same group of players resurfaces because they can't get past the fourth tier? Then the fifth? The the sixth?
They probably will complain. Then someone will point out that all is as it should be, like we see people getting a 60+Mil difference in War get told. At least they'll have their foot in the experience. Not just told to "Git gud.". You stonewall people enough, and they won't care enough to work harder.
As for the Rewards, I wouldn't care if they were altered because of said "easier" Matches, so long as it wasn't nerfed to the ground. If it's appropriate to what people are doing, I'd be fine with that. I'm more concerned with people having a chance starting out than the Rewards. What that would look like is open for debate.
As for the Rewards, I wouldn't care if they were altered because of said "easier" Matches, so long as it wasn't nerfed to the ground. If it's appropriate to what people are doing, I'd be fine with that. I'm more concerned with people having a chance starting out than the Rewards. What that would look like is open for debate.
I sincerely hope kabam takes your advice and nerfs the rewards. The little guys that you are advocating for over here will be the first one with pitchforks complaining about it.
I've been abundantly clear about what I'm saying is, what my position is, what my concern is. I've made suggestions in this Thread, which have been presented by other people, and I agree with. I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind more, but I'm not dead-set on it. The idea is SOMETHING regulates the Matches for the start. Something prevents people from being bashed about before they even get a chance to have a start. Something prevents others from gaining unfair advantages in other ways, like we've seen. I have no idea how many more words I can use to explain what I would like to see, but feel free to misconstrue my thoughts into being about Rewards, or giving lower Players a leg up, or whatever other twist you see fit to make. If I were any clearer after pages and pages of explaining my points, I'd be Windex. I want people to have a reasonable start to the competition. Not just a farce of a pecking order that tickles the top Players and stops anyone else from getting into the activity itself. That kind of self-serving perspective has been executed before, and people scarcely care if they play that mode or not, unless they're the only ones getting anywhere. You can interpret that however many ways you like. I know what I said. I know what I mean. I know what I'm standing for. Period.
The problem is, and this is important on a discussion forum, no one else does.
So let's simplify. Yes or no. If the Battlegrounds match maker matched players at the start of the season based primarily on roster strength, but as the player advanced through the Victory track tiers the game shifted from matching primarily on roster strength to primarily matching on ELO (win/loss rating), then, for some negotiable Victory track tier in the middle of the Victory circuit, would you consider that to be fair to all players, or at least reasonable grounds upon which to build a fair match making system?
Either you believe this is fair, or you do not believe this is fair. You could settle this with a simple answer.
So let's pretend for a moment that the lower prestige accounts only get matched against comparative accounts for the first 3 tiers.
How long will it be before the same group of players resurfaces because they can't get past the fourth tier? Then the fifth? The the sixth?
That's irrelevant, the whole point here is that there shouldn't be a brick wall for lower players from the get go. Later on it's a different story but on Bronze? That's ridiculous. If you were a lower player would you want to be stuck trying to get out of bronze for a whole week and keep losing the streak because random matchmaking screws you over and matches you with a Paragon or a TB on a league where fights shouldn't be too hard for anyone? I was UC too with a bunch of maxed out 4* at some point and I wouldn't have wanted that back then.
So let's pretend for a moment that the lower prestige accounts only get matched against comparative accounts for the first 3 tiers.
How long will it be before the same group of players resurfaces because they can't get past the fourth tier? Then the fifth? The the sixth?
That's irrelevant, the whole point here is that there shouldn't be a brick wall for lower players from the get go. Later on it's a different story but on Bronze? That's ridiculous. If you were a lower player would you want to be stuck trying to get out of bronze for a whole week and keep losing the streak because random matchmaking screws you over and matches you with a Paragon or a TB on a league where fights shouldn't be too hard for anyone? I was UC too with a bunch of maxed out 4* at some point and I wouldn't have wanted that back then.
Would I want that? No, I wouldn't.
Would I come here complaining that it's not fair to get beat by someone with a stronger account when I'm competing for the same thing? No, I wouldn't.
Would I do my best while simultaneously building my roster strength through the numerous other pieces of content available to me, and have a sense of satisfaction by measuring my BG progression in each subsequent season? Yes, I would.
So let's pretend for a moment that the lower prestige accounts only get matched against comparative accounts for the first 3 tiers.
How long will it be before the same group of players resurfaces because they can't get past the fourth tier? Then the fifth? The the sixth?
That's irrelevant, the whole point here is that there shouldn't be a brick wall for lower players from the get go. Later on it's a different story but on Bronze? That's ridiculous. If you were a lower player would you want to be stuck trying to get out of bronze for a whole week and keep losing the streak because random matchmaking screws you over and matches you with a Paragon or a TB on a league where fights shouldn't be too hard for anyone? I was UC too with a bunch of maxed out 4* at some point and I wouldn't have wanted that back then.
Would I want that? No, I wouldn't.
Would I come here complaining that it's not fair to get beat by someone with a stronger account when I'm competing for the same thing? No, I wouldn't.
Would I do my best while simultaneously building my roster strength through the numerous other pieces of content available to me, and have a sense of satisfaction by measuring my BG progression in each subsequent season? Yes, I would.
What progress? When you're talking about the extreme example of UC Players, they're not making any progress by being slaughtered from the start. Yet they're a part of the competition. So how is it reasonable to expect them to continue playing if they have no chance from the start and a pat on the shoulder saying, "Toughen up, kid."? Do you think everyone is going to keep taking Loss after Loss and still putting their Roster into the Matchmaking? No. They're going to stop caring. Bottom line is, if they're going to be a part of the game mode, they need to be more of a consideration than Big Fish Food.
I'm paragon and I'm being slaughtered from the start. It's one step forward one step back all the way.
I basically quit last season after the first few days and stuck in silver 2. I've started this season with a win and 2 losses and I think I'm done. Progression is such an impossible slog with the current system
Again... some people just don't get it... If i have great skill but weak roster, and I play/climb faster than my peers..I will end up being drawn to players with better roster (regardless of their skill level)..to b drawn to players with same prestige..etc..isn't gonna work cuz this also takes into account the time you play and the time players of the same prestige plays.. there is no "fairness" in bg draws..which makes it so intriguing...
So if you chooose to rush your climb to gc with your low prestige/weak roster but great skill...do you expect many of your kind to do the same?
I'm paragon and I'm being slaughtered from the start. It's one step forward one step back all the way.
I basically quit last season after the first few days and stuck in silver 2. I've started this season with a win and 2 losses and I think I'm done. Progression is such an impossible slog with the current system
It’s not a problem a Paragon being at Silver2, all good. As long as UC players can stroll VT till Gladiator Circuit, everything it’s fine 😂😂😂
So let's pretend for a moment that the lower prestige accounts only get matched against comparative accounts for the first 3 tiers.
How long will it be before the same group of players resurfaces because they can't get past the fourth tier? Then the fifth? The the sixth?
That's irrelevant, the whole point here is that there shouldn't be a brick wall for lower players from the get go. Later on it's a different story but on Bronze? That's ridiculous. If you were a lower player would you want to be stuck trying to get out of bronze for a whole week and keep losing the streak because random matchmaking screws you over and matches you with a Paragon or a TB on a league where fights shouldn't be too hard for anyone? I was UC too with a bunch of maxed out 4* at some point and I wouldn't have wanted that back then.
Would I want that? No, I wouldn't.
Would I come here complaining that it's not fair to get beat by someone with a stronger account when I'm competing for the same thing? No, I wouldn't.
Would I do my best while simultaneously building my roster strength through the numerous other pieces of content available to me, and have a sense of satisfaction by measuring my BG progression in each subsequent season? Yes, I would.
Comments
At some point, he presumably would have everyone converge—at which stage larger accounts would get the relief of weaker competition and weaker accounts would hit the wall.
His premise, as far as I can tell, is that he cares more for the experience than the rewards in BGs. But rewarding larger accounts the initial tier prizes along with a staggered start in order to create a better experience for smaller accounts isn’t acceptable because he thinks that creates entitlement for the larger accounts and unfairness to the weaker accounts.
That’s what I’ve been able to glean.
Dr. Zola
2-0 Match victory awards two points (trophies)
2-1 Match victory awards one point
1-2 Match loss awards no points
0-2 Match loss costs one point
This kind of scoring a) propels the best of the best out of VC and into GC quicker, where they are supposed to be anyway, b) encourages players to fight for every win, because even one win out of three helps, and c) lowers the chance of sliding backwards and thus reduces the amount of frustration over lost progress. Under this system you'd probably need to increase the trophies required for progress per tier by at least one, maybe two when you get to upper Diamond and Vibranium.
As to staggered starts, the complicating factor is participation. We cannot give gigantic BG rewards to players who don't actually fight, regardless of progress tier. Instead, for practical reasons, if we start a Paragon player in, say, Gold, then instead of mailing them the rewards at start up, we would need to give them a set of milestone rewards they would need to earn by actually participating. They could be essentially doubling up on rewards as they play, by earning the normal BG rewards and these other "start up" rewards for the same play, but they can't get the rewards for nothing.
Given that, anyone thinking they are being harmed by match making denying their ability to match/compete against these players are missing the fact that those players wouldn’t be participating if match making worked the way you think it should work.
VT is similar to a playground, and y’all demanding the 12 year olds play sports against the 7 year olds; no one has fun or benefits from those situations, well except those who can’t stand to lose.
For example, give players an objective based on progression for reaching one or more milestones for participation in the season. “Score 70,000 points in the battlegrounds solo event.” Then, assign rewards based on progression title. It doesn’t interfere with rankings for the season solo event. It still allows for the staggered start/shorter progression tracks.
And I’m absolutely fine with your -1, 0, 1, 2 plan. I think it accomplishes much the same thing Im trying to fix.
On an unrelated note, I’ll continue to ignore any EarthlyIntelligence who wants to rant about privileged paragons. None of us should rake unserious people seriously.
This isn't the problem. Or rather, this is the converse of the problem. The problem is not that higher progress players are not being "allowed" to match against lower progress players. The problem is lower progress players are being allowed to scoop up a huge chunk of rewards through a much easier path than many if not most high progress players. That's intrinsically unfair. And it would be prejudicial to be worried about the lower progress players who might quit if their competitive path was made harder, and not be worried about the higher progress players already facing identical hardships. What if they quit? They are currently matching against someone, and those someones would no longer get those wins. Every "loser" (someone with a low in percentage) who quits makes things harder on everyone else, regardless of their progress tier.
VT is a much more participatory tier of Battlegrounds to be sure. I actually advocated strongly for the game mode to include concessions to participation from the closed beta. I went so far as to say the game mode was doomed if it did not do that. However, the current system is completely upside down. It is far easier for me to earn rewards on my Cav account than my Paragon account. If enough Paragon players figure this out and decide that when they "hit the wall" with their mains they should just switch to a lower alt and beat up the kids on the playground, you'll have the same situation. An alt in BG is like a shell in AW, only a perfectly legal shell that Kabam can do nothing about.
More than perhaps any other player, I'm aware of the danger of advocating for a fix for the match maker issues. I was the loudest voice on the other side of the fence when the game mode was still in its early stages. I know what a participatory death spiral looks like in turnstile game modes, and I strongly encouraged the devs to take that threat as seriously as possible from the beginning. But this? This is just too much for me.
I do not envy the devs navigating this balancing act. But that does not mean that were I in charge I would not act immediately.
The first couple of Brackets in the competition. I'm sorry, but that's a fair start. You're fighting the people within your own range, and if you can't advance with that, you have no argument for being able to compete at a higher level.
So what if lower Players have some small amount of success at the beginning and feel incentivized to keep trying? Why is this such an issue? I'll tell you why, greed.
There's a point where competitiveness becomes greed, and it ruins the competition for a good many people, save for the ones who are benefitting. It's the same greed that motivated Tanking and Sandbagging, and even Modding. Different forms, same thing.
We're arguing at how unfair it is to have the results of an even Match at the beginning of a competition because they're having an "easier time at the Rewards". Bull****. We're arguing people trying to keep anyone lower than them from making any progress at all because there are Rewards at stake. That's not competition. That's greed.
They're going to have to face random Matches and most likely be defeated either way, but expecting them to start off facing the highest Accounts in the game mode is NOT a "fair system". It's one that caters to people who are already going to have more success inherently, and making it about the Rewards just displays the real problem is the unhealthy greed for the Rewards that leads to a number of issues.
I've said my piece. I'm not sitting back and saying nothing. We all know full well what fair is and what fair is not and it's not changed because of any payout when it's just plain wrong.
Even when people directly confront you and ask you for a specific suggestion on what you would do, you don't say "I would like the match making system to match players against other players roughly their progression level in Bronze and Silver, before matching them against everyone else in higher tiers." Instead, you say something like I'm not suggesting anything I'm just saying everyone else is wrong and I will continue to say that because we all know I'm right even if no one else will admit it because they are all greedy bastards who hate other players.
When given an opportunity to clarify your position, you use that opportunity to editorialize about everyone else's position. You can't back track from that and claim all you're saying is X, when that's literally the only thing you consistently fail to state. You are not only trying to say X. Your predominant purpose is to comment on how everyone else is wrong. Which is your prerogative, but then expect the inevitable response.
I have no idea how many more words I can use to explain what I would like to see, but feel free to misconstrue my thoughts into being about Rewards, or giving lower Players a leg up, or whatever other twist you see fit to make. If I were any clearer after pages and pages of explaining my points, I'd be Windex.
I want people to have a reasonable start to the competition. Not just a farce of a pecking order that tickles the top Players and stops anyone else from getting into the activity itself. That kind of self-serving perspective has been executed before, and people scarcely care if they play that mode or not, unless they're the only ones getting anywhere. You can interpret that however many ways you like. I know what I said. I know what I mean. I know what I'm standing for. Period.
So let's simplify. Yes or no. If the Battlegrounds match maker matched players at the start of the season based primarily on roster strength, but as the player advanced through the Victory track tiers the game shifted from matching primarily on roster strength to primarily matching on ELO (win/loss rating), then, for some negotiable Victory track tier in the middle of the Victory circuit, would you consider that to be fair to all players, or at least reasonable grounds upon which to build a fair match making system?
Either you believe this is fair, or you do not believe this is fair. You could settle this with a simple answer.
How long will it be before the same group of players resurfaces because they can't get past the fourth tier? Then the fifth? The the sixth?
So I say, if you're telling people to wait until they're big boys to have a valid concern, how long do you expect to keep them in the pool? This isn't only harmful to their desire to play it. It also affects the matchmaking, as well as anyone else looking to fight them. There's a line. Overkilling them at the door is that line.
If you were a lower player would you want to be stuck trying to get out of bronze for a whole week and keep losing the streak because random matchmaking screws you over and matches you with a Paragon or a TB on a league where fights shouldn't be too hard for anyone? I was UC too with a bunch of maxed out 4* at some point and I wouldn't have wanted that back then.
Would I come here complaining that it's not fair to get beat by someone with a stronger account when I'm competing for the same thing? No, I wouldn't.
Would I do my best while simultaneously building my roster strength through the numerous other pieces of content available to me, and have a sense of satisfaction by measuring my BG progression in each subsequent season? Yes, I would.
Bottom line is, if they're going to be a part of the game mode, they need to be more of a consideration than Big Fish Food.
I basically quit last season after the first few days and stuck in silver 2. I've started this season with a win and 2 losses and I think I'm done. Progression is such an impossible slog with the current system
So if you chooose to rush your climb to gc with your low prestige/weak roster but great skill...do you expect many of your kind to do the same?
As long as UC players can stroll VT till Gladiator Circuit, everything it’s fine 😂😂😂