To be honest this is an already solved problem. You'd have a bg rating similar to war rating. You fight people with similar bg ratings. You win your rating goes up, lose it goes down.
You'd have to assign starter ratings based on the current brackets. So uncollected have a bronze rating 1000, paragon platinum say 5000(this is just for illustration you get the idea).
Bronze, silver gold etc all have a particular bg rating you need to make those rewards available.
As you win you'll move up(or down) and it'll eventually shake out so everyone should have roughly a 50% win rate in the bracket where they are truly fighting their peers.
To actually collect the rewards you'd still need to get 3 wins per level in that season. So bronze 3 rewards you need 3 wins. If you've made it to platinum 1 say you'll need 36 wins to get all the rewards you're entitled to. This is stopping people just sitting in a bracket and collecting rewards for nothing.
How does something like that sound? Obviously it's a bit rough but you get the general idea I think it works
I've been coming up against Paragon Players in Bronze 2, and I'm TB, so evidently something has changed. I'm completely fine with whatever I Match. I just don't think the experience of people starting out in the competition is trivial. If that's the case, why allow them to compete if they're just going to be pinballed from the start? My view is the same as it was. You need to give people SOME kind of chance and incentive starting out. Otherwise they're going to be over it, fast.
It was not a title based matchmaking but more of a prestige based.
Don't see how. My Prestige wasn't that close. That was my point.
What’s your prestige? And your opponent’s prestige?
Well, I have one R4, and they definitely had a healthy Roster. I don't care personally. My own Matches aren't a concern for me. I've got enough Champs that I'm either going to win or be beaten. Just seemed a little more broad.
I'm kinda bothered by you just not answering what he asked. Just my prestige is X and his prestige was Z. It's kind of off topic but I just noticed how little direct answers you give.
That really doesn't serve anyone but the top. That's less of a competition and more of War. We already have one game mode like that. No one is as motivated to play it as the only people benefitting from it, and all that does is lock the final standings based on Title because the top is either going to advance faster than anyone can meet them, or stick around and prevent anyone else from going up. I don't want to play a competition that's decided before I even play. It's not just a vehicle for Rewards. It's a competition.
I've been coming up against Paragon Players in Bronze 2, and I'm TB, so evidently something has changed. I'm completely fine with whatever I Match. I just don't think the experience of people starting out in the competition is trivial. If that's the case, why allow them to compete if they're just going to be pinballed from the start? My view is the same as it was. You need to give people SOME kind of chance and incentive starting out. Otherwise they're going to be over it, fast.
It was not a title based matchmaking but more of a prestige based.
Don't see how. My Prestige wasn't that close. That was my point.
What’s your prestige? And your opponent’s prestige?
Well, I have one R4, and they definitely had a healthy Roster. I don't care personally. My own Matches aren't a concern for me. I've got enough Champs that I'm either going to win or be beaten. Just seemed a little more broad.
I'm kinda bothered by you just not answering what he asked. Just my prestige is X and his prestige was Z. It's kind of off topic but I just noticed how little direct answers you give.
It's around the 12k area, if it's that important. Didn't think it was to illustrate my point.
That really doesn't serve anyone but the top. That's less of a competition and more of War. We already have one game mode like that. No one is as motivated to play it as the only people benefitting from it, and all that does is lock the final standings based on Title because the top is either going to advance faster than anyone can meet them, or stick around and prevent anyone else from going up. I don't want to play a competition that's decided before I even play. It's not just a vehicle for Rewards. It's a competition.
I don't know why I'm being sucked into this logic free argument but here I am.
So it should be a competition where the best teams don't do well? That makes no sense unless you're running a lottery.
It allows everyone to find their level based on team strength and skill. I'm not sure what you're looking for here. What does a fair competition look like to you?
If you don't want team strength to play a part you would have to artificially fix all champs to the same level say r5 5*. That way it's an entirely skill based competition. Kabam are not likely to do this as getting you to rank champs is essentially what their business is based on. The current system is punishing you for ranking champs and progressing your roster by giving you much more difficult match ups.
I'd certainly be very happy if they did lock everyone's champs to the same level it would probably be to my benefit but I don't think that's likely to happen.
I've been coming up against Paragon Players in Bronze 2, and I'm TB, so evidently something has changed. I'm completely fine with whatever I Match. I just don't think the experience of people starting out in the competition is trivial. If that's the case, why allow them to compete if they're just going to be pinballed from the start? My view is the same as it was. You need to give people SOME kind of chance and incentive starting out. Otherwise they're going to be over it, fast.
Nothing has changed in that regard, I’ve come across paragons as a thronebreaker in almost every match for the last 2 seasons. I had 1 R4 then, up to 2 now, hasn’t made a difference in the matches. And it starts from bronze 3 lol so not like I got an easy exit.
That really doesn't serve anyone but the top. That's less of a competition and more of War. We already have one game mode like that. No one is as motivated to play it as the only people benefitting from it, and all that does is lock the final standings based on Title because the top is either going to advance faster than anyone can meet them, or stick around and prevent anyone else from going up. I don't want to play a competition that's decided before I even play. It's not just a vehicle for Rewards. It's a competition.
I don't know why I'm being sucked into this logic free argument but here I am.
So it should be a competition where the best teams don't do well? That makes no sense unless you're running a lottery.
It allows everyone to find their level based on team strength and skill. I'm not sure what you're looking for here. What does a fair competition look like to you?
If you don't want team strength to play a part you would have to artificially fix all champs to the same level say r5 5*. That way it's an entirely skill based competition. Kabam are not likely to do this as getting you to rank champs is essentially what their business is based on. The current system is punishing you for ranking champs and progressing your roster by giving you much more difficult match ups.
I'd certainly be very happy if they did lock everyone's champs to the same level it would probably be to my benefit but I don't think that's likely to happen.
What I'm looking for is exactly what I've stated. Numerous times. As for "finding their level", they can do that based on their results in the competition. Not because they get a free pass at the start. There's a difference between what I'm talking about and what that suggestion does.
The only thing I can say for certain is that you will never get direct answers to direct questions. Instead, you'll get tap dancing and vague references to what was said before.
Now by extrapolation, I can reasonably assume that what he desires is an open competition, where everyone competes for the same rewards, but with underlying bracketing of matches to make sure no one faces a stronger opponent. He would like this to happen in VT from bronze to vibranium, but he's open to discussion on that. In GC its okay for it to be a truly open competition where anyone may fight anyone else in the same tier.
What he needs however, and what more and more, I think Kabam should do, is simply create Battle Grounds Brackets...be it title based, prestige, hero rating, etc.
Within each of those brackets, they would still have a VT and GC, but the rewards would be adjusted accordingly, similar to monthly EQ.
Tiny sample, but in 10 matches so far this season, my average opponent prestige without relics, is 14906 and with relics is 15148 from bronze 3 to just entering bronze 1.
The highest base prestige was 16112 (16356 with relics) and the lowest was 14061 (14329 with relics)
I have 15194 with relics.
@Kabam Jax can we sell relics please? I won't be opening or levelling any relics from here on out, that's for certain!!!
That aside, it's the zero sum game of the mode that's demoralizing and putting me off playing it; losing is so bad for progress, that it can make you feel that playing is pointless if you go on a bad streak in the VC.
I'm only playing it *because* the rewards are unparalleled.
I believe reaching GC is equivalent to more than a gauntlet full run or highest reward Carina 3 challenge?
Most paragons that *can* do that content (most of us, because we already have done gauntlet and at least one Carina) will not get to the GC statistically.
It's creating 2 tiers of paragons; those that are able to hit 60%+ win rate or willing to sink the time to repeatedly smash their face against the spiked wall of the ladder, to achieve GC or past gold. And those that don't.
If this had the same level of rewards as incursions, I would not touch battlegrounds with this way of climbing the ladder. It would be a dead mode and as soon as they tweak the rewards down, I'll stop playing immediately if the ladder remains.
Tiny sample, but in 10 matches so far this season, my average opponent prestige without relics, is 14906 and with relics is 15148 from bronze 3 to just entering bronze 1.
The highest base prestige was 16112 (16356 with relics) and the lowest was 14061 (14329 with relics)
I have 15194 with relics.
@Kabam Jax can we sell relics please? I won't be opening or levelling any relics from here on out, that's for certain!!!
That aside, it's the zero sum game of the mode that's demoralizing and putting me off playing it; losing is so bad for progress, that it can make you feel that playing is pointless if you go on a bad streak in the VC.
I'm only playing it *because* the rewards are unparalleled.
I believe reaching GC is equivalent to more than a gauntlet full run or highest reward Carina 3 challenge?
Most paragons that *can* do that content (most of us, because we already have done gauntlet and at least one Carina) will not get to the GC statistically.
It's creating 2 tiers of paragons; those that are able to hit 60%+ win rate or willing to sink the time to repeatedly smash their face against the spiked wall of the ladder, to achieve GC or past gold. And those that don't.
If this had the same level of rewards as incursions, I would not touch battlegrounds with this way of climbing the ladder. It would be a dead mode and as soon as they tweak the rewards down, I'll stop playing immediately if the ladder remains.
It's insane you are matching against that strong of opponents in bronze. This is where I believe the prestige matchmaking must stay, cos if I were playing those opponents, I could never get out of bronze
That's why this is an issue, there are huge numbers of paragons who won't make it out of silver.
Silver.
If you have just 40% win rate, you're not getting to gold without dedicating hours and hours to BGs. 30% and you've no chance. And you're a paragon!!! Most paragons have completed an abyss run, 100% act 7 and 8.1, compete (or used to) in higher tier wars, completed most if not all EOPs and have decent rosters. These people know how to play the game. Most paragons have spent on the game too.
So there are no easy matches for a paragon and they are the backbone of the financial support for the game. I've over 240 war MVPs but I'm only hitting 50% win rate. There are no easy matches against paragons.
This ladder system and prestige matchmaking will be locking a huge number of the financial backers of the game (paragons) out of *the* best rewards in game.
Add to that the control issues and I can see why my alliance of paragons and high TBs had 5 *spending* retirements in the last 8 days.
Tiny sample, but in 10 matches so far this season, my average opponent prestige without relics, is 14906 and with relics is 15148 from bronze 3 to just entering bronze 1.
The highest base prestige was 16112 (16356 with relics) and the lowest was 14061 (14329 with relics)
I have 15194 with relics.
@Kabam Jax can we sell relics please? I won't be opening or levelling any relics from here on out, that's for certain!!!
That aside, it's the zero sum game of the mode that's demoralizing and putting me off playing it; losing is so bad for progress, that it can make you feel that playing is pointless if you go on a bad streak in the VC.
I'm only playing it *because* the rewards are unparalleled.
I believe reaching GC is equivalent to more than a gauntlet full run or highest reward Carina 3 challenge?
Most paragons that *can* do that content (most of us, because we already have done gauntlet and at least one Carina) will not get to the GC statistically.
It's creating 2 tiers of paragons; those that are able to hit 60%+ win rate or willing to sink the time to repeatedly smash their face against the spiked wall of the ladder, to achieve GC or past gold. And those that don't.
If this had the same level of rewards as incursions, I would not touch battlegrounds with this way of climbing the ladder. It would be a dead mode and as soon as they tweak the rewards down, I'll stop playing immediately if the ladder remains.
It's insane you are matching against that strong of opponents in bronze. This is where I believe the prestige matchmaking must stay, cos if I were playing those opponents, I could never get out of bronze
Prestige matchmaking can only be used in Bronze, or maximum up to Silver. Anything above, its exploitation, with the “miss match” excuse. You are right, you wouldn’t be able to get out of Bronze by matching these opponents. How would you feel? Bad probably. Now think how worse you would feel if you were a Paragon stuck in Bronze. Imagine how bad these people are feeling. Matchmaking is bad, but also bad is the whole VT structure with the consecutive wins requirement. It’s demoralising for those who can’t achieve the 60%+ win ratio that needed to progress. They should change it to +2 shield for win, -1 shield for loss, and double up shields needed to advance on each tier of VT. That way eventually most players will be able to advance by playing, and make their time spent worthwhile. Because as it is now, if you are not having a high win ratio, you get only the 48hrs objectives rewards (if you are lucky and they are not bugged and get them 😂) which are exactly 16800 trophy tokens each season. To reach all 48hrs objectives, someone needs to play 6 matches per 2 days or 14x6=84 matches throughout season(with a supposed 50% win ratio). Multiply by 10min per match, that’s 840min or 14hrs for 16800 trophy tokens. It’s a lot of effort for small payout. If you are not advancing VT tiers, BGs not worth the time investment at all.
I'm coming to the realisation it's the progression system. Summoners at all levels are probably stuck at very low levels of the vt because of the loss mechanic.
It's a zero sum game. For someone to win and progress someone has to lose and take a step back towards zero.
Only those with a 60%+ win rate are going to progress at any speed.
Nearly half of summoners will have a sub 50% win rate. They're winning one/losing one at best. Only the occasional streak will allow them to progress otherwise they're going to be going nowhere.
The bracketing just highlights what a bad system it is. The top 30% of uncollected players are shooting straight into the gc while the bottom 50% of paragon players are going nowhere.
It's the most rewarding game mode at the moment. Summoners are definitely going to try to drop into a lower bracket by intentionally not engaging with relics and only using sig stones or making rank ups when they're really necessary.
The *theory* was that the strong players would progress upward, and vacate the lower tiers, essentially making it easier to win in the lower tiers.
In practice, this effect is barely noticeable, and it is incredibly punishing towards reward earning rates due to the fact that the progress rate is almost exponentially dependent on win percentage and player strength is widely distributed. Or to put it more simply, even when the best move up, that still leaves the best of the rest to hold everyone else back. Slightly below average players relative to their roster strength, which represent a sizeable percentage of all players need the best of the best to advance, and then the best of the rest, and then the best of what's left, and then the best of what remains, and then the best of everyone else to progress before they get their shot. By then the season is almost over.
And yes, the best should do better than the rest. But at the moment, the best of the best do better than everyone else, but after that the players above average overall are not statistically likely to outperform the players below average in strength but above average in their roster bracket.
The only way it disincentivizes strengthening your Roster is if you're looking for easy pickin's. That's just an extension of Sandbagging. Manipulate what you're working with for unfair advantages in the system. I don't doubt that having the metric all the way throughout the VT causes problems for Players. I'm just not behind the idea of extreme Matches at the beginning of the competition. Why bother including them among the highest if they're not going to get anywhere, and only serve to catapult people higher? I'm sure some would see this as inconsequential, and would even be happy if they didn't want to play because of one reason or another, but I'm not that blasé about their right to get into the competition as well. Those Matches have no business taking place at the very start of the competition. If they're not going to have a shot in hell, then remove them. I'd rather see it restricted than using them for the sole purpose of making it easier for the highest subset of Players, and discouraging them from even trying. I'm not even being dramatic. No one wants to keep playing if they take Loss after Loss at the gate. I'm not supporting them having an accelerated trip to the GC, and I'm not supporting freezing anyone's progress. I'm just not validating the entitlement to massacre them at the start. Let's be totally honest. They have absolutely no chance to win against an Account that much higher, and as far as I'm concerned, that kind of Match isn't justified. If they're going to make it available to Players from UC through to Paragon, then it has to be something that people have a chance at. Taking Loss after Loss in Bronze 3 is not a reasonable thing to do just because there are Objectives. There has to be SOME kind of reasonable limits at first.
For the record, it wouldn't be a bad thing to focus less on raising the ceiling of Accounts and focusing more on Ranking a number of options if BGs is the focus. It's all about having as many Champs as you can Ranked that give choices after the draft, depending on what the Nodes are. BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height.
For the record, it wouldn't be a bad thing to focus less on raising the ceiling of Accounts and focusing more on Ranking a number of options if BGs is the focus. It's all about having as many Champs as you can Ranked that give choices after the draft, depending on what the Nodes are. BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height.
Game team should put this on the loading screen where pro tips like “ranged attacks don’t trigger abilities like parry or thorns” get displayed.
For the record, it wouldn't be a bad thing to focus less on raising the ceiling of Accounts and focusing more on Ranking a number of options if BGs is the focus. It's all about having as many Champs as you can Ranked that give choices after the draft, depending on what the Nodes are. BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height.
Game team should put this on the loading screen where pro tips like “ranged attacks don’t trigger abilities like parry or thorns” get displayed.
Dr. Zola
It's a valid point, considering the number of Players who don't Rank anything but the "best" and find themselves at a loss for options after the Ban. Especially if they earn Titles before they've developed their Rosters
For the record, it wouldn't be a bad thing to focus less on raising the ceiling of Accounts and focusing more on Ranking a number of options if BGs is the focus. It's all about having as many Champs as you can Ranked that give choices after the draft, depending on what the Nodes are. BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height.
Game team should put this on the loading screen where pro tips like “ranged attacks don’t trigger abilities like parry or thorns” get displayed.
Dr. Zola
It's actually kinda funny, how in both cases the statements are not helpful at all. Like Angela can parry projectile, and "BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height" is a very misleading at very least, as you only need to have a better roster within you prestige group, wich means not growing in 'height' as long as possible
For the record, it wouldn't be a bad thing to focus less on raising the ceiling of Accounts and focusing more on Ranking a number of options if BGs is the focus. It's all about having as many Champs as you can Ranked that give choices after the draft, depending on what the Nodes are. BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height.
Game team should put this on the loading screen where pro tips like “ranged attacks don’t trigger abilities like parry or thorns” get displayed.
Dr. Zola
It's actually kinda funny, how in both cases the statements are not helpful at all. Like Angela can parry projectile, and "BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height" is a very misleading at very least, as you only need to have a better roster within you prestige group, wich means not growing in 'height' as long as possible
Wrong. Battlegrounds is about having as many possible counters and options Ranked high enough as possible. So that you have optimal choices given the Nodes that are currently active, as well as multiple options incase your most used are Banned. You need Champs that make tough Defenders, given the Nodes, and you need optimal Attackers given the same. It's also not a bad idea to have some less popular options that help because that throws people off. But what do I know. Lol.
For the record, it wouldn't be a bad thing to focus less on raising the ceiling of Accounts and focusing more on Ranking a number of options if BGs is the focus. It's all about having as many Champs as you can Ranked that give choices after the draft, depending on what the Nodes are. BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height.
Game team should put this on the loading screen where pro tips like “ranged attacks don’t trigger abilities like parry or thorns” get displayed.
Dr. Zola
It's actually kinda funny, how in both cases the statements are not helpful at all. Like Angela can parry projectile, and "BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height" is a very misleading at very least, as you only need to have a better roster within you prestige group, wich means not growing in 'height' as long as possible
Wrong. Battlegrounds is about having as many possible counters and options Ranked high enough as possible. So that you have optimal choices given the Nodes that are currently active, as well as multiple options incase your most used are Banned. You need Champs that make tough Defenders, given the Nodes, and you need optimal Attackers given the same. It's also not a bad idea to have some less popular options that help because that throws people off. But what do I know. Lol.
You write so much, but seems like you don't really read what other people say. Or maybe you don't want to understand what is the issue for many players. It doesn't mean it is okay to diminish their issues only because you don't experience it yourself and too lazy to comprehend it.
For the record, it wouldn't be a bad thing to focus less on raising the ceiling of Accounts and focusing more on Ranking a number of options if BGs is the focus. It's all about having as many Champs as you can Ranked that give choices after the draft, depending on what the Nodes are. BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height.
Game team should put this on the loading screen where pro tips like “ranged attacks don’t trigger abilities like parry or thorns” get displayed.
Dr. Zola
It's actually kinda funny, how in both cases the statements are not helpful at all. Like Angela can parry projectile, and "BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height" is a very misleading at very least, as you only need to have a better roster within you prestige group, wich means not growing in 'height' as long as possible
Wrong. Battlegrounds is about having as many possible counters and options Ranked high enough as possible. So that you have optimal choices given the Nodes that are currently active, as well as multiple options incase your most used are Banned. You need Champs that make tough Defenders, given the Nodes, and you need optimal Attackers given the same. It's also not a bad idea to have some less popular options that help because that throws people off. But what do I know. Lol.
You are right. It’s about having as many possible counters and options ranked high enough but it doesn’t depend on rarity. If you have a diverse 4* roster ranked up and maintain your prestige at around 5k or so, you can breeze through to GC without any issues. Just have go make sure you dont rank any 5* above r3 and dont open any 6* crystals.
For the record, it wouldn't be a bad thing to focus less on raising the ceiling of Accounts and focusing more on Ranking a number of options if BGs is the focus. It's all about having as many Champs as you can Ranked that give choices after the draft, depending on what the Nodes are. BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height.
Game team should put this on the loading screen where pro tips like “ranged attacks don’t trigger abilities like parry or thorns” get displayed.
Dr. Zola
It's actually kinda funny, how in both cases the statements are not helpful at all. Like Angela can parry projectile, and "BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height" is a very misleading at very least, as you only need to have a better roster within you prestige group, wich means not growing in 'height' as long as possible
Wrong. Battlegrounds is about having as many possible counters and options Ranked high enough as possible. So that you have optimal choices given the Nodes that are currently active, as well as multiple options incase your most used are Banned. You need Champs that make tough Defenders, given the Nodes, and you need optimal Attackers given the same. It's also not a bad idea to have some less popular options that help because that throws people off. But what do I know. Lol.
You write so much, but seems like you don't really read what other people say. Or maybe you don't want to understand what is the issue for many players. It doesn't mean it is okay to diminish their issues only because you don't experience it yourself and too lazy to comprehend it.
I understand the issue. I just don't appreciate subtle ultimatums that don't even make sense.
I've acknowledged the issue. I also stated my main concern. Those two things aren't exclusive. Both can exist in my mind. What I don't care for is the implication people are going to stop advancing their Accounts. I think that's just suggestive to an end. Nor does it make sense. They're going to stop advancing their Accounts to play a game mode to advance their Accounts. Nor is the Prestige race anything Kabam has ever encouraged. That was Player-born. I'm not saying the issue is of no consequence. I'm not that ignorant. I just don't agree that it's leverage for a system that can be used to such an advantage that it undermines the other side.
@Aleor you mean like how some of the people commenting on this thread diminished the issues lower players had with sandbagging back when it was still a thing. Some of the people on this thread were #1 sandbagging advocates so why should anyone care about their complaints?
For the record, it wouldn't be a bad thing to focus less on raising the ceiling of Accounts and focusing more on Ranking a number of options if BGs is the focus. It's all about having as many Champs as you can Ranked that give choices after the draft, depending on what the Nodes are. BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height.
Game team should put this on the loading screen where pro tips like “ranged attacks don’t trigger abilities like parry or thorns” get displayed.
Dr. Zola
It's actually kinda funny, how in both cases the statements are not helpful at all. Like Angela can parry projectile, and "BGs is about the width of your Roster as much as it is the height" is a very misleading at very least, as you only need to have a better roster within you prestige group, wich means not growing in 'height' as long as possible
Wrong. Battlegrounds is about having as many possible counters and options Ranked high enough as possible. So that you have optimal choices given the Nodes that are currently active, as well as multiple options incase your most used are Banned. You need Champs that make tough Defenders, given the Nodes, and you need optimal Attackers given the same. It's also not a bad idea to have some less popular options that help because that throws people off. But what do I know. Lol.
You are right. It’s about having as many possible counters and options ranked high enough but it doesn’t depend on rarity. If you have a diverse 4* roster ranked up and maintain your prestige at around 5k or so, you can breeze through to GC without any issues. Just have go make sure you dont rank any 5* above r3 and dont open any 6* crystals.
I'm not supporting that. I've already stated that. I'm supporting some sort of starting point for Players that doesn't make them dead in the water. The main issue is having all Player levels in the same pool at the onset. As I said, I get it. I'm just not for having nothing keeping Match after Match they have literally no chance of winning. How is it just as easily justified for a 15k Prestige Account to come up against a 5k Account at the starting line?
It's not only about prestige now. The game matches accounts based on progression title also this season.
It’s not based on progression title, it’s mainly Prestige based. Only thing that is uncertain is if the algorithm uses your top5 prestige champs, or it is evolved to to use the average prestige of more, like 30 f.e. which would be a full deck at BGs. Remember Kabam said that everyone with the matchmaking change to get rid of sandbagging, will be encouraged to use their top champs at BGs. Which of course happens now, everyone uses their top champs. But those who have lower top champs are in a great advantage, because they are avoiding those who have higher top champs, the whole VT, ultimately avoiding the competition until they reach GC. It’s not their fault, it’s the matchmaking’s fault, which has been tested in the past at AW also and it was a big failure, same as it is now at BGs.
Comments
You'd have to assign starter ratings based on the current brackets. So uncollected have a bronze rating 1000, paragon platinum say 5000(this is just for illustration you get the idea).
Bronze, silver gold etc all have a particular bg rating you need to make those rewards available.
As you win you'll move up(or down) and it'll eventually shake out so everyone should have roughly a 50% win rate in the bracket where they are truly fighting their peers.
To actually collect the rewards you'd still need to get 3 wins per level in that season. So bronze 3 rewards you need 3 wins. If you've made it to platinum 1 say you'll need 36 wins to get all the rewards you're entitled to. This is stopping people just sitting in a bracket and collecting rewards for nothing.
How does something like that sound? Obviously it's a bit rough but you get the general idea I think it works
So it should be a competition where the best teams don't do well? That makes no sense unless you're running a lottery.
It allows everyone to find their level based on team strength and skill. I'm not sure what you're looking for here. What does a fair competition look like to you?
If you don't want team strength to play a part you would have to artificially fix all champs to the same level say r5 5*. That way it's an entirely skill based competition. Kabam are not likely to do this as getting you to rank champs is essentially what their business is based on. The current system is punishing you for ranking champs and progressing your roster by giving you much more difficult match ups.
I'd certainly be very happy if they did lock everyone's champs to the same level it would probably be to my benefit but I don't think that's likely to happen.
Now by extrapolation, I can reasonably assume that what he desires is an open competition, where everyone competes for the same rewards, but with underlying bracketing of matches to make sure no one faces a stronger opponent. He would like this to happen in VT from bronze to vibranium, but he's open to discussion on that. In GC its okay for it to be a truly open competition where anyone may fight anyone else in the same tier.
What he needs however, and what more and more, I think Kabam should do, is simply create Battle Grounds Brackets...be it title based, prestige, hero rating, etc.
Within each of those brackets, they would still have a VT and GC, but the rewards would be adjusted accordingly, similar to monthly EQ.
The highest base prestige was 16112 (16356 with relics) and the lowest was 14061 (14329 with relics)
I have 15194 with relics.
@Kabam Jax can we sell relics please? I won't be opening or levelling any relics from here on out, that's for certain!!!
That aside, it's the zero sum game of the mode that's demoralizing and putting me off playing it; losing is so bad for progress, that it can make you feel that playing is pointless if you go on a bad streak in the VC.
I'm only playing it *because* the rewards are unparalleled.
I believe reaching GC is equivalent to more than a gauntlet full run or highest reward Carina 3 challenge?
Most paragons that *can* do that content (most of us, because we already have done gauntlet and at least one Carina) will not get to the GC statistically.
It's creating 2 tiers of paragons; those that are able to hit 60%+ win rate or willing to sink the time to repeatedly smash their face against the spiked wall of the ladder, to achieve GC or past gold. And those that don't.
If this had the same level of rewards as incursions, I would not touch battlegrounds with this way of climbing the ladder. It would be a dead mode and as soon as they tweak the rewards down, I'll stop playing immediately if the ladder remains.
Silver.
If you have just 40% win rate, you're not getting to gold without dedicating hours and hours to BGs. 30% and you've no chance. And you're a paragon!!! Most paragons have completed an abyss run, 100% act 7 and 8.1, compete (or used to) in higher tier wars, completed most if not all EOPs and have decent rosters. These people know how to play the game. Most paragons have spent on the game too.
So there are no easy matches for a paragon and they are the backbone of the financial support for the game. I've over 240 war MVPs but I'm only hitting 50% win rate. There are no easy matches against paragons.
This ladder system and prestige matchmaking will be locking a huge number of the financial backers of the game (paragons) out of *the* best rewards in game.
Add to that the control issues and I can see why my alliance of paragons and high TBs had 5 *spending* retirements in the last 8 days.
Anything above, its exploitation, with the “miss match” excuse.
You are right, you wouldn’t be able to get out of Bronze by matching these opponents.
How would you feel? Bad probably.
Now think how worse you would feel if you were a Paragon stuck in Bronze.
Imagine how bad these people are feeling.
Matchmaking is bad, but also bad is the whole VT structure with the consecutive wins requirement.
It’s demoralising for those who can’t achieve the 60%+ win ratio that needed to progress.
They should change it to +2 shield for win, -1 shield for loss, and double up shields needed to advance on each tier of VT.
That way eventually most players will be able to advance by playing, and make their time spent worthwhile.
Because as it is now, if you are not having a high win ratio, you get only the 48hrs objectives rewards (if you are lucky and they are not bugged and get them 😂) which are exactly 16800 trophy tokens each season.
To reach all 48hrs objectives, someone needs to play 6 matches per 2 days or 14x6=84 matches throughout season(with a supposed 50% win ratio).
Multiply by 10min per match, that’s 840min or 14hrs for 16800 trophy tokens.
It’s a lot of effort for small payout.
If you are not advancing VT tiers, BGs not worth the time investment at all.
In practice, this effect is barely noticeable, and it is incredibly punishing towards reward earning rates due to the fact that the progress rate is almost exponentially dependent on win percentage and player strength is widely distributed. Or to put it more simply, even when the best move up, that still leaves the best of the rest to hold everyone else back. Slightly below average players relative to their roster strength, which represent a sizeable percentage of all players need the best of the best to advance, and then the best of the rest, and then the best of what's left, and then the best of what remains, and then the best of everyone else to progress before they get their shot. By then the season is almost over.
And yes, the best should do better than the rest. But at the moment, the best of the best do better than everyone else, but after that the players above average overall are not statistically likely to outperform the players below average in strength but above average in their roster bracket.
I don't doubt that having the metric all the way throughout the VT causes problems for Players. I'm just not behind the idea of extreme Matches at the beginning of the competition. Why bother including them among the highest if they're not going to get anywhere, and only serve to catapult people higher?
I'm sure some would see this as inconsequential, and would even be happy if they didn't want to play because of one reason or another, but I'm not that blasé about their right to get into the competition as well. Those Matches have no business taking place at the very start of the competition. If they're not going to have a shot in hell, then remove them. I'd rather see it restricted than using them for the sole purpose of making it easier for the highest subset of Players, and discouraging them from even trying.
I'm not even being dramatic. No one wants to keep playing if they take Loss after Loss at the gate. I'm not supporting them having an accelerated trip to the GC, and I'm not supporting freezing anyone's progress. I'm just not validating the entitlement to massacre them at the start.
Let's be totally honest. They have absolutely no chance to win against an Account that much higher, and as far as I'm concerned, that kind of Match isn't justified. If they're going to make it available to Players from UC through to Paragon, then it has to be something that people have a chance at. Taking Loss after Loss in Bronze 3 is not a reasonable thing to do just because there are Objectives. There has to be SOME kind of reasonable limits at first.
Dr. Zola
I'm not saying the issue is of no consequence. I'm not that ignorant. I just don't agree that it's leverage for a system that can be used to such an advantage that it undermines the other side.
How is it just as easily justified for a 15k Prestige Account to come up against a 5k Account at the starting line?
Only thing that is uncertain is if the algorithm uses your top5 prestige champs, or it is evolved to to use the average prestige of more, like 30 f.e. which would be a full deck at BGs.
Remember Kabam said that everyone with the matchmaking change to get rid of sandbagging, will be encouraged to use their top champs at BGs.
Which of course happens now, everyone uses their top champs. But those who have lower top champs are in a great advantage, because they are avoiding those who have higher top champs, the whole VT, ultimately avoiding the competition until they reach GC.
It’s not their fault, it’s the matchmaking’s fault, which has been tested in the past at AW also and it was a big failure, same as it is now at BGs.