Kabam, what’s wrong with your battlegrounds matchmaking?

I have 6 rank 4 champs. I deal players with 10+ rank 4 champs. It doesn’t look like a normal system. It’s quite disappointing to do such matches. This way you can’t move anywhere.

cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/9a/7l16p9q8m1yr.jpeg" alt="" />

Comments

Tofifi

Colinwhitworth69

You have almost three weeks left in this cycle, so there will be time for bigger rosters to move up and leave you facing accounts on your level.

The matchmaking cannot be tailored to give everyone "fair" fights, just fights against people in whatever tier they are in. It's a competition.

ThePredator1001

6 6* R4 vs 10 6* R4 isn’t that big of a difference… I could see if you didn’t have any 6* R4 why that would be frustrating but it’s almost never going to be someone at your exact strength

Chatterofforums

So you want the same or better rewards than those in this rank rewards system but you don't think you should have to go against them?

The biggest mistake Kabam made was making such a ridiculous matchmaking system in previous seasons that gave lower players an easier path to high BG rewards. This motivated many from avoiding rankups while making lower accounts feel entitled to thinking they have to get matchups with those similar in size to their roster despite going for same rewards as those with far stronger rosters.

Greekhit

I have 6 rank 4 champs. I deal players with 10+ rank 4 champs. It doesn’t look like a normal system. It’s quite disappointing to do such matches. This way you can’t move anywhere.

cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/9a/7l16p9q8m1yr.jpeg" alt="" />

Complaints like these are the root of the Battlegrounds matchmaking problem.
Why you want matches with the exact similar deck?
What’s the point of even ranking up champs if you would always face same strength decks?
As long as you are at the same tier (VT) or same rating (GC), matches should be totally random.
You should be able to match anyone that competes for these rewards.
Instead of asking for more EVEN matchmaking, you should ask for a more FAIR matchmaking, which is random.

GroundedWisdom

Here we go again. War 2.0. People need to let others express their grievances without telling them they don't matter.

Chatterofforums

Here we go again. War 2.0. People need to let others express their grievances without telling them they don't matter.

Or maybe people should stop expecting to not have to face stronger rosters while competing for the EXACT same rewards as everyone else.

Expecting an easy route to top BG rewards and expecting easy path to same or better rewards than much stronger rosters is nothing short of extremely entitled.

GroundedWisdom

Here we go again. War 2.0. People need to let others express their grievances without telling them they don't matter.
Or maybe people should stop expecting to not have to face stronger rosters while competing for the EXACT same rewards as everyone else.

Expecting an easy route to top BG rewards and expecting easy path to same or better rewards than much stronger rosters is nothing short of extremely entitled.

First of all the OP is in Silver 1, so that excuse is out the door. Secondly, the Profile Pic suggests they're not new to BGs. Thirdly, their Account isn't some new Account wanting inappropriate Rewards, as you imply. Is it that hard to accept someone else's opinion doesn't fit your agenda?
No, if people don't agree, then they must be silenced.

Demonzfyre

I have 6 rank 4 champs. I deal players with 10+ rank 4 champs. It doesn’t look like a normal system. It’s quite disappointing to do such matches. This way you can’t move anywhere.

cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/9a/7l16p9q8m1yr.jpeg" alt="" />

You're going to face competition. The difference between a R3 and R4 isn't that much. You're never going to get a match that has exactly what you have in your roster. That's the whole point of this game mode.

If you don't want to be challenged, then don't play it. If you want the rewards those same people are going for, you'll have to compete against them.

DNA3000

No, if people don't agree, then they must be silenced.

No one here is being silenced or asked not to post. However, no one is immune from criticism. Anyone can post anything within the rules, but everyone else can tell them they are wrong if they choose.

This is not a kindergarten sandbox nor is this a support group. This is a discussion forum, and if you can't be told you're wrong, you should seek a support group instead of a discussion forum.

GroundedWisdom

No, if people don't agree, then they must be silenced.
No one here is being silenced or asked not to post. However, no one is immune from criticism. Anyone can post anything within the rules, but everyone else can tell them they are wrong if they choose.

This is not a kindergarten sandbox nor is this a support group. This is a discussion forum, and if you can't be told you're wrong, you should seek a support group instead of a discussion forum.

I think you'll find it's the same dog piles on the same subjects on here.

Dangerx17

I have 6 rank 4 champs. I deal players with 10+ rank 4 champs. It doesn’t look like a normal system. It’s quite disappointing to do such matches. This way you can’t move anywhere.

cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/9a/7l16p9q8m1yr.jpeg" alt="" />

I made a post about this same thing and everyone was complaining and disagreeing with me clearly it doesn't make sense in the VT to be coming across accounts with several 6* r4 champs fighting a thronebreaker with only 2 r4 6*

Chatterofforums

I have 6 rank 4 champs. I deal players with 10+ rank 4 champs. It doesn’t look like a normal system. It’s quite disappointing to do such matches. This way you can’t move anywhere.

cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/9a/7l16p9q8m1yr.jpeg" alt="" />

I made a post about this same thing and everyone was complaining and disagreeing with me clearly it doesn't make sense in the VT to be coming across accounts with several 6* r4 champs fighting a thronebreaker with only 2 r4 6*

But you think you should be able to advance past those stronger rosters without having to face them?

Demonzfyre

I have 6 rank 4 champs. I deal players with 10+ rank 4 champs. It doesn’t look like a normal system. It’s quite disappointing to do such matches. This way you can’t move anywhere.

cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/9a/7l16p9q8m1yr.jpeg" alt="" />

I made a post about this same thing and everyone was complaining and disagreeing with me clearly it doesn't make sense in the VT to be coming across accounts with several 6* r4 champs fighting a thronebreaker with only 2 r4 6*

Why? You want match making to be able to match you with someone who only has 2 R4'S and you want to compete for the same rewards and someone with 4 R4's? How does that make any sense?

DNA3000

I made a post about this same thing and everyone was complaining and disagreeing with me clearly it doesn't make sense in the VT to be coming across accounts with several 6* r4 champs fighting a thronebreaker with only 2 r4 6*

Clearly, it doesn't make sense that accounts with only two R4s should be earning the same rewards as accounts with several, because those accounts have clearly progressed so far that they are no longer fair competition for the accounts with only two. Since they are in a completely different class, they should be getting rewards of a completely different class. Right?

It cannot "clearly" not make sense for account A and account B to compete against each other, but "clearly" be totally fine if they both have the same opportunity for the same rewards.

Ironman3000

Actually, it's not War 2.0 because in War better Allys get a higher win multiplier than lower Allys to justify their harder matches.

GroundedWisdom

I'm talking about the responses on the Forum. Someone posts an outlandish difference like 10M vs. 70M, and it's jumped on and dismissed as "Nothing to see here.", even though we all know that's not a fair match, regardless of War Rating. That's why people are posting. That's my concern. You end up with the highest Accounts camping out at the early stages of the competition, just for easy pickings and it comes at the detriment of lower Accounts.
Regardless of that, my point is the same issues are brushed off on here. People are sharing their concerns.

Dangerx17

I have 6 rank 4 champs. I deal players with 10+ rank 4 champs. It doesn’t look like a normal system. It’s quite disappointing to do such matches. This way you can’t move anywhere.

cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/9a/7l16p9q8m1yr.jpeg" alt="" />

I made a post about this same thing and everyone was complaining and disagreeing with me clearly it doesn't make sense in the VT to be coming across accounts with several 6* r4 champs fighting a thronebreaker with only 2 r4 6*

But you think you should be able to advance past those stronger rosters without having to face them?

Not at all, but I don't think I should be facing them so soon in the VT. I was seeing stacked accounts since silver and now I'm plat 2 it's not like I've been facing weaker opponents since silver 1 all the way to plat 2 I've been facing crazy ass paragon's super early, I don't think that makes sense

QuikPik

Try facing war masters and top tier AQ players all the time starting in Bronze 3. It's really hard to string a few wins in a row to move up. Most of the time it's win one lose one depending on the draft.

GroundedWisdom

That's BGs. That's how it goes. You win or lose based on the draft.

QuikPik

The margin for error is very small at the top. One missed parry or intercept and you lost the round. That doesn't happen at the lower levels because not everyone is equally skilled.

GroundedWisdom

You think that can't happen at lower levels? The scoring is the same either way. That's the real measure of skill here. It's the same for everyone. Sorry if that offends some people, but it's the same measuring stick.

GroundedWisdom

Is it entirely the same? Obviously not. Fights are tighter, sure. It's still the same objectives. Same Global Nodes, same Points system.

Nichoas_1

Victory track is not gladiators circuit. When we speak about facing bigger accounts just trying to move up the ladder it’s pretty crappy. Put the similar accounts facing each other til skill proves too low or too high then adjust the matchmaking in the same system accordingly. The current system fails to do anything like that and sometimes makes this game mode feel like pulling teeth. I keep getting nothing but legends personally and I’ve beaten a ton of legends but all of a sudden can’t win a single match to save my life. I’ve never had this much trouble in bgs in these lower victory tracks and yet I’m having it this season. Friggin silver feels like gladiator circuit. I think the original poster is well within his rights to think this match making system sucks

Banhammer_ste

I'd love to know how things are for lower level players in lower brackets. I'm beginning to think bg is probably almost unplayable for half the player base.

If you're in the lower half of your bracket you can't string together wins and progress anywhere.

They probably don't complain because they just think they need to improve their roster or skills a bit

Jefechuta

I think that BG should be a skill themed mode, so you should match balanced fights where you and your opponent have similar level (talking about the champs themselves).

Then the one that played better would win.

And it not fair to match almost full R4 players when you have 3 or 4, because if you both have similar skills, then the one with more jacked roster will win, or even if they play a little worse, they would win still, theres still a decent difference between each rank between R1 and R4, thats why we rank up champs, if not why waste resources on ranking champions when that rank up will not make any difference?

Its senseless to talk about the rewards, if you are more skilled, you win more rewards, and thats it.

People think that players with a lot of R4s have more skill than players with only a few, thats the main problem here.

You having more champs fully ranked up doesnt mean you are better, it means you spend more or you play waaaaay more, that doesnt mean you are more skilled necessarily.

At least in VT, GC should be different, but in VT matchmaking should mainly look for players with similar rosters, so skill will be the main difference between them.

In GC there should be tiers like in Incursions, and depending on which bracket you are, each fight will give you different amount of points, the higher the bracket the more points you get.

Something like:

Non R3 6*: 5 points per win, -5 per lose.
Between 1 and 5 R3 6*: 10 points per win, - 10 points per lose.
Between 1 and 3 R4 6*: 15 points per win, -15 points per lose.
More than 3 R4* 6*: +20 points per win, -20 points per lose

In this case, every 3 R4 that the enemy has more than you, will make a difference of 1 point; Ill explain this.

If you have 3 R4 and the enemy has 9 R4, you will lose 18 points instead of 20.

This way the players that are behind in roster wont have this matchmaking issues because dont lose as much when they get vs stronger roster.

And this wont affect the ones with stronger rosters because they will have "easier" fights since they have a more jacked roster.

I think its the most fair way

Mr_Platypus

Man I must say it’s wild that all these thronebreaker with 1-2 r4s are only just now fighting 14k+ prestige players in victory track…
I also have 2 r4s and I’ve been facing the stacked 14k+ opponents in 70% of matches for the previous 2 seasons.

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Jefechuta

I think that BG should be a skill themed mode, so you should match balanced fights where you and your opponent have similar level (talking about the champs themselves).

Then the one that played better would win.

And it not fair to match almost full R4 players when you have 3 or 4, because if you both have similar skills, then the one with more jacked roster will win, or even if they play a little worse, they would win still, theres still a decent difference between each rank between R1 and R4, thats why we rank up champs, if not why waste resources on ranking champions when that rank up will not make any difference?

Its senseless to talk about the rewards, if you are more skilled, you win more rewards, and thats it.

People think that players with a lot of R4s have more skill than players with only a few, thats the main problem here.

You having more champs fully ranked up doesnt mean you are better, it means you spend more or you play waaaaay more, that doesnt mean you are more skilled necessarily.

At least in VT, GC should be different, but in VT matchmaking should mainly look for players with similar rosters, so skill will be the main difference between them.

In GC there should be tiers like in Incursions, and depending on which bracket you are, each fight will give you different amount of points, the higher the bracket the more points you get.

Something like:

Non R3 6*: 5 points per win, -5 per lose.
Between 1 and 5 R3 6*: 10 points per win, - 10 points per lose.
Between 1 and 3 R4 6*: 15 points per win, -15 points per lose.
More than 3 R4* 6*: +20 points per win, -20 points per lose

In this case, every 3 R4 that the enemy has more than you, will make a difference of 1 point; Ill explain this.

If you have 3 R4 and the enemy has 9 R4, you will lose 18 points instead of 20.

This way the players that are behind in roster wont have this matchmaking issues because dont lose as much when they get vs stronger roster.

And this wont affect the ones with stronger rosters because they will have "easier" fights since they have a more jacked roster.

I think its the most fair way
Good suggestion, but every 3 rank4 more reduces the points lost by 1 is just too little. Having 6 more rank4s than your opponent gives you a much bigger advantage which can't be neutered with losing 2 less points out of 20 in the case of a loss

Giving more than 1 is too much difference and that would give advantage to recent Paragons, because they would get the same points and lose lot less points.

1 every 3 would make you lose only 11 points instead of 20 if you play vs a player with full R4, a thinks that quite enough