We've also chatted about how BG is the first mode that isn't meant to be won 100% of the time.....Because you are head-to-head with other Summoners, inevitably 50% of you are losing. It is completely reasonable that this shift in gameplay mentality causes discomfort and frustration.
Happy Friday, everyone.
@Kabam Jax can't quite believe that's been acknowledged but the logical conclusion has not been reached. As @Greekhit@Banhammer_ste and others have pointed out, that design will lead to the death of BGs.
If 50% lose and their time in game feels like dead time, they will stop playing and it does then death spiral as the next on the losers list also quit.
The risk your run, is that big accounts who dedicated a lot of time and money in the game, will quit the game *entirely* if they feel that the most lucrative rewards in game mandate playing a mode which has a substantial chance of being entirely dead time, for no reward.
Check your stats on game engagement; if BG play time has gone up at the expense of war, AQ and EQ, then be worried, as this matchmaking system, may kill the game as a result, when the BG death spiral kicks in.
Big accounts who have spent a lot of time and money into their accounts? What about the other 50% who win and also spend a lot of time and money into their accounts?
Feels like to me that they find it hard to get good and are just throwing tantrums because they aren’t getting things handed to them. I say let them quit. They are replaceable anyways
You completely misunderstand the argument. Let's assume Those that only win 40% of the time and feel like they don't get anything for their time in BGs, stop playing. And that's the issue, not losing, but no reward for time in the game mode; if you can't get rewards in BG, your won't play it. They'd play EQ, even arena instead.
Those winning 60% of the time at their expense, now slip to, for example, 50% win rate and those at 70% (bero) slip to 60%. Those who were are 50% are now only 40% winners and become the meat feeding bero's 60%. So they quit too. Now the group that were winning at 60% only win at 40%. So they quit. Now even bero struggles to climb the victory track as there simply aren't enough participants. "Let them quit" in a mode that has to have high participation, literally prices the point.
I to reiterate..it's not losing that's the issue, it's the high chance that people who are making progress possible for others, but not themselves, see time in BGs as a waste and that spiralling.
Of course someone has to lose a match. That's self evident. It's how do you keep the losers playing, when there's minimal incentive to play, is the challenge. DNA has a great suggestion.
The best way to fix BG is to remove winning streak system from victory track atleast . Instead of 3-5 streak wins in a row there should be some fixed numbers of win required to move up in bg in victory track.
In Glad circuit Matchmaking should be random based on tier of the player.
Meaning, "We would flatten them if they came up against us." is not a statement that they don't deserve their progress.
Looking at Arcane right now, I’m 100% comfortable saying many of those accounts don’t deserve their progress or their rewards.
Dr. Zola
That's where I'm going to have to disagree. Unless they cheated somehow to get there, they fight within the competition, they win, they progress, and they have earned them. It's a competition based on progress made within the competition as the requirements stand. They're not manipulating the outcome, they're not cheating (the ones I'm speaking to), and they're not gaining any unfair advantages. They deserve them because they've earned them.
They’ve not proved they’ve earned anything. You’re arguing they have more skill than me because they have won enough consecutive matches to get into GC and I haven’t. But I’m not getting the opportunity to play them with my years of knowledge and experience.
I think there is only one solution. We limit victory track to only be able to use 3* champions and everybody plays each other, then Gladiators Circuit is open to whole roster. So for Victory track its Uncollected Vs Cavalier Vs Thronebreaker Vs Paragon but only using 3* rosters.
Then it will be about skill, roster knowledge, understanding counters etc. I want to play uncollected players using an uncollected level team. Not sandbanding team of half 1* champs half 6*R3 or 4.
So let’s make it about skill, limit everyone to 3* and see how many of these uncollected/cav accounts end up this quickly in GC. They won’t. That’s why I disagree with your whole perspective on this. This is why we get so annoyed seeing GS full of accounts that as paragon players we could beat. If getting through VT was truly skill based those of us complaining would be more likely to be there.
So that’s my solution let’s equalise Victory Track by limiting rosters to lowest common denominator.
The first point is just moot, really. They've earned their Rewards in the competition, and whether you think they deserve them or not is inconsequential. If they've made it as far as they have without cheating the system, they deserve them because they've earned them. You can't argue legitimate results. The second part I'm quite happy with. In fact, I suggested that myself, and I believe you'd be pleasantly surprised that some Players are skilled enough to advance with an equal footing. All? No. Some would still succeed.
I think the whole point here is that they may ‘earned’ their spot in GC and all the milestones rewards to get there because the system Kabam currently has in place allows them to.
The whole point of this is whether the system is fair to all at all levels. So no it’s not a moot point. If you agree with the solution that an even playing field of 3* champions through victory track makes progression through it fair. Then it follows that is some inherent unfairness in the current system. I’m sure there are some highly skilled uncollected, cav players who with the same deck could beat me, and more power to them. But at least this system would be fair to all players. Add in the system DNA3000 is promoting about number of points won / lost and you also limit the psychological impact of constantly losing.
Obviously an even playing field of 3* decks won’t be a thing. Kabam wants people to expand and rank up rosters. That’s the chase that earns them money. But there is a genuine unfairness in the current system that the majority of forum users are expressing.
Fairness is subjective so you can’t say we are wrong for having this opinion, just like I can’t say you are wrong for having yours. But given the majority feel this way it is feedback Kabam should and now seems they are listening to. Although I do think the only way they will make a change is if their own analytics show there has been a behavioural change in players, where the numbers taking part reduces, or sales of BG related purchases go down. I would hazard a guess that learned helpness from BG is real for a lot of players who have reduced there involvement or given up totally on the mode.
Im pretty sure everyone would be happy and things would be solved for the majority of the players if we just remove the stupid system when u lose in victory track a star is taken. The worst thing is to lose and have to win twice again for the same amount of Star - that goes more frustrating at diamonds 1-2 when u need 4-5 consistent wins. Another + for this is ppl wont be able to cheat and stay at lower brackets bronze with the win/lose system. Gladiator ranking is already fine with point system. I mean its the win-win change for players, dunno about kabam tho, poor shields cant make them profit.
People are complaining about progression and the time and money invested, also cheaters and modders in the mode. I would like Kabam to take a very friendly and unusual approach to this huge issue for next season. Would like them to at least try it out for next season and then run their datasheet.
I suggest NOT penalizing the player for losing a match. Increase the number of matches from 3 to 4 medals in order to advance to the next tiers. So by that account you need 12 wins to get out of the Bronze tiers, 12 wins for the silver tiers, 12 wins for the gold tiers, so on and so for. By doing this, you are still encouraging the player to play good and try their best to win matches but won't get penalized for losing and vaguely waste their time. If you win you get a medal. If you lose you don't get medal and won't have medals removed from progression.
I believe this will make 90% of the player base extremely happy and will encourage more spending by them. Win/win scenario for both parties.
For the record, I don't like the statement. However, the point is that no one appreciates being marginalized. No one appreciates having their frustrations belittled, and no one appreciates being told their progress is invalid. I understand there is a certain amount of tit-for-tat in discussions, but all sides are valid, and no one is going to get anywhere by negating the other side's concerns.
For the record, I don't like the statement. However, the point is that no one appreciates being marginalized. No one appreciates having their frustrations belittled, and no one appreciates being told their progress is invalid. I understand there is a certain amount of tit-for-tat in discussions, but all sides are valid, and no one is going to get anywhere by negating the other side's concerns.
I will never change my mind that if someone is getting better rewards than me when it is obvious they can't beat me but don't have to face me, then they don't deserve those better rewards than me.
That's like paying an amateur boxer more than a professional or giving a higher contract to a minor league baseball player than a professional. Sure their stats are good, but they are facing a far lower quality of opponents so they obviously don't get higher rewards than those at higher progression such as the professionals.
That's the part of your argument that you consistently refuse to accept. I will keep shouting that if you can't beat me,/ but don't have to face me, you don't deserve better rewards than me from now until BG is fixed.
For the record, I don't like the statement. However, the point is that no one appreciates being marginalized. No one appreciates having their frustrations belittled, and no one appreciates being told their progress is invalid. I understand there is a certain amount of tit-for-tat in discussions, but all sides are valid, and no one is going to get anywhere by negating the other side's concerns.
I will never change my mind that if someone is getting better rewards than me when it is obvious they can't beat me but don't have to face me, then they don't deserve those better rewards than me.
That's like paying an amateur boxer more than a professional or giving a higher contract to a minor league baseball player than a professional. Sure their stats are good, but they are facing a far lower quality of opponents so they obviously don't get higher rewards than those at higher progression such as the professionals.
That's the part of your argument that you consistently refuse to accept. I will keep shouting that if you can't beat me,/ but don't have to face me, you don't deserve better rewards than me from now until BG is fixed.
Oh, I'm fully aware that you're fixated on what other people are getting. Sooner or later you're going to have to accept the fact that they're earning it through their own Matches. So they do. If you're as skilled as you say you are, win your own Matches. It's less of a Sports analogy, and more akin to saying if I can't have them, no one can.
I mean they'd mostly likely be told how best to progress their account so they could move up the ranks. Not told to git gud. That's if progressing your account didn't make things more difficult as it does right now.
I've been here for years. I've seen the reactions people have here. Some are helpful, more often than not, people are told to Git Gud and that the system is as it should be, so there's no problem here.
You've just got to filter out the serious replies from the nonsense. A complete free for all would be ridiculous as you've said. You'd have 4m paragons matching with 100k uc accounts. Beyond demoralising for those little accounts. Clearly that isn't sensible or fair.
Neither is 800k cav accounts easlily outperforming 3m paragon accounts. Despite what you may think those paragons are in 99% of cases much more skilled than those lower accounts. It isn't just roster strength
There are ways to fix it to make it reasonably equitable for everyone. We just have to keep banging on about it until we get something a bit more concrete from kabam.
You've just got to filter out the serious replies from the nonsense. A complete free for all would be ridiculous as you've said. You'd have 4m paragons matching with 100k uc accounts. Beyond demoralising for those little accounts. Clearly that isn't sensible or fair.
Neither is 800k cav accounts easlily outperforming 3m paragon accounts. Despite what you may think those paragons are in 99% of cases much more skilled than those lower accounts. It isn't just roster strength
There are ways to fix it to make it reasonably equitable for everyone. We just have to keep banging on about it until we get something a bit more concrete from kabam.
I'm not really saying the system is perfect as-is. What I take issue with is telling people they don't deserve the Rewards they've earned fairly.
You've just got to filter out the serious replies from the nonsense. A complete free for all would be ridiculous as you've said. You'd have 4m paragons matching with 100k uc accounts. Beyond demoralising for those little accounts. Clearly that isn't sensible or fair.
Neither is 800k cav accounts easlily outperforming 3m paragon accounts. Despite what you may think those paragons are in 99% of cases much more skilled than those lower accounts. It isn't just roster strength
There are ways to fix it to make it reasonably equitable for everyone. We just have to keep banging on about it until we get something a bit more concrete from kabam.
I'm not really saying the system is perfect as-is. What I take issue with is telling people they don't deserve the Rewards they've earned fairly.
Then you should start a thread about that topic, rather than spam this one with an off topic focus.
That's not off-topic. It's at the heart of the OP's argument.
I am the OP, I made the video and NO, it wasn't at the heart at my argument at all. My argument was there is clearly something wrong if so many lower accounts/ UC and Cav are in Arcane 2 and so many Paragons are still in victory track.
You've just got to filter out the serious replies from the nonsense. A complete free for all would be ridiculous as you've said. You'd have 4m paragons matching with 100k uc accounts. Beyond demoralising for those little accounts. Clearly that isn't sensible or fair.
Neither is 800k cav accounts easlily outperforming 3m paragon accounts. Despite what you may think those paragons are in 99% of cases much more skilled than those lower accounts. It isn't just roster strength
There are ways to fix it to make it reasonably equitable for everyone. We just have to keep banging on about it until we get something a bit more concrete from kabam.
I'm not really saying the system is perfect as-is. What I take issue with is telling people they don't deserve the Rewards they've earned fairly.
Then you should start a thread about that topic, rather than spam this one with an off topic focus.
That's not off-topic. It's at the heart of the OP's argument.
I am the OP, I made the video and NO, it wasn't at the heart at my argument at all. My argument was there is clearly something wrong if so many lower accounts/ UC and Cav are in Arcane 2 and so many Paragons are still in victory track.
I feel like I was close enough
I agree. I just wanted to chime in as the person you were discussing with that has the habit of putting words in other people's mouths or trying to speak for other people incorrectly.
Since he was incorrectly trying to speak for me, and interpreted my message as something completely different than what it was, I just needed to clarify.
Your message is the same as it's been in numerous Threads. You're upset they're in the GC while some Paragons are not. You yourself have said in this Thread that they don't deserve the Rewards when they would lose against you. I think you're having trouble staying on your own topic.
Your message is the same as it's been in numerous Threads. You're upset they're in the GC while some Paragons are not. You yourself have said in this Thread that they don't deserve the Rewards when they would lose against you. I think you're having trouble staying on your own topic.
I never said they don't deserve rewards. I said they don't deserve better rewards than players they can't beat but don't have to face. That is not the same thing.
Same thing. You say they don't deserve them because they never fought you, and you're lower than them.
No, they're saying that it isn't fair that they're being judged against those who have faced lesser competition, without the opportunity to face that same competition. If it was the eq, we wouldn't say it was fair if it was prestige locked but all the rewards were the same for each tier. Incursions gives higher rewards for higher tiers, where people are locked into a certain level of competition.
Define lesser. Everyone compares the opponent but they don't factor in what they're using.
Same thing. You say they don't deserve them because they never fought you, and you're lower than them.
No, they're saying that it isn't fair that they're being judged against those who have faced lesser competition, without the opportunity to face that same competition. If it was the eq, we wouldn't say it was fair if it was prestige locked but all the rewards were the same for each tier. Incursions gives higher rewards for higher tiers, where people are locked into a certain level of competition.
Define lesser. Everyone compares the opponent but they don't factor in what they're using.
By lesser I mean the competition is weaker in every way including champs (rarity, rank, sig, variety) masteries, and experience (which potentially impacts opponents skill level).
Yes. So is the Roster they're using to fight with. Which means the challenge level (affected by Nodes Rarity, Rank, Sig, variety) is scaled the same. People compare the opponents they're facing with the ones higher Players are facing, but they're not facing them with the same Roster either. The Matches are scaled within a close proximity of each other, given what both sides are using versus their own Opponents. The comparison is one-sided. It's also self-serving. "They wouldn't last against my Account." You're not lasting WITH your Account, and you expect people with less to be slaughtered just because you're not succeeding. (By you I mean the Royal "you".) It's lacking perspective. They're not fighting Rosters 5 times their size, but neither are you. You're facing Rosters within the same range of what you're working with as they are. I'm going to be blunt. If people spent more time on their own Matches than they did being jealous of the progress other people are making, they would progress more.
Same thing. You say they don't deserve them because they never fought you, and you're lower than them.
No, they're saying that it isn't fair that they're being judged against those who have faced lesser competition, without the opportunity to face that same competition. If it was the eq, we wouldn't say it was fair if it was prestige locked but all the rewards were the same for each tier. Incursions gives higher rewards for higher tiers, where people are locked into a certain level of competition.
Define lesser. Everyone compares the opponent but they don't factor in what they're using.
By lesser I mean the competition is weaker in every way including champs (rarity, rank, sig, variety) masteries, and experience (which potentially impacts opponents skill level).
Yes. So is the Roster they're using to fight with. Which means the challenge level (affected by Nodes Rarity, Rank, Sig, variety) is scaled the same. People compare the opponents they're facing with the ones higher Players are facing, but they're not facing them with the same Roster either. The Matches are scaled within a close proximity of each other, given what both sides are using versus their own Opponents. The comparison is one-sided. It's also self-serving. "They wouldn't last against my Account." You're not lasting WITH your Account, and you expect people with less to be slaughtered just because you're not succeeding. (By you I mean the Royal "you".) It's lacking perspective. They're not fighting Rosters 5 times their size, but neither are you. You're facing Rosters within the same range of what you're working with as they are. I'm going to be blunt. If people spent more time on their own Matches than they did being jealous of the progress other people are making, they would progress more.
Right, but the game mode only has 1 pool so the job then is to determine if the challenge is equitable and decide if the rewards are meant to be equal for those differences or similarly scaled (the value of t6 cats for a paragon player versus the value of t6 material for a uc player etc). I would say its like in pro sports, where the roster is judged against the same competition across the board (they don't sub out stars for less skilled players when facing an inferior roster as a rule, and the prizes are the same for everyone).
The Store limits what you can buy. So they're not having access to the same Mats.
Comments
Those winning 60% of the time at their expense, now slip to, for example, 50% win rate and those at 70% (bero) slip to 60%. Those who were are 50% are now only 40% winners and become the meat feeding bero's 60%. So they quit too. Now the group that were winning at 60% only win at 40%. So they quit. Now even bero struggles to climb the victory track as there simply aren't enough participants. "Let them quit" in a mode that has to have high participation, literally prices the point.
I to reiterate..it's not losing that's the issue, it's the high chance that people who are making progress possible for others, but not themselves, see time in BGs as a waste and that spiralling.
Of course someone has to lose a match. That's self evident. It's how do you keep the losers playing, when there's minimal incentive to play, is the challenge. DNA has a great suggestion.
Instead of 3-5 streak wins in a row there should be some fixed numbers of win required to move up in bg in victory track.
In Glad circuit Matchmaking should be random based on tier of the player.
Gold and platinum rosters up to 4*
Diamond and Vibramium up to 5* I think the whole point here is that they may ‘earned’ their spot in GC and all the milestones rewards to get there because the system Kabam currently has in place allows them to.
The whole point of this is whether the system is fair to all at all levels. So no it’s not a moot point. If you agree with the solution that an even playing field of 3* champions through victory track makes progression through it fair. Then it follows that is some inherent unfairness in the current system. I’m sure there are some highly skilled uncollected, cav players who with the same deck could beat me, and more power to them. But at least this system would be fair to all players. Add in the system DNA3000 is promoting about number of points won / lost and you also limit the psychological impact of constantly losing.
Obviously an even playing field of 3* decks won’t be a thing. Kabam wants people to expand and rank up rosters. That’s the chase that earns them money. But there is a genuine unfairness in the current system that the majority of forum users are expressing.
Fairness is subjective so you can’t say we are wrong for having this opinion, just like I can’t say you are wrong for having yours. But given the majority feel this way it is feedback Kabam should and now seems they are listening to. Although I do think the only way they will make a change is if their own analytics show there has been a behavioural change in players, where the numbers taking part reduces, or sales of BG related purchases go down. I would hazard a guess that learned helpness from BG is real for a lot of players who have reduced there involvement or given up totally on the mode.
The worst thing is to lose and have to win twice again for the same amount of Star - that goes more frustrating at diamonds 1-2 when u need 4-5 consistent wins.
Another + for this is ppl wont be able to cheat and stay at lower brackets bronze with the win/lose system.
Gladiator ranking is already fine with point system.
I mean its the win-win change for players, dunno about kabam tho, poor shields cant make them profit.
This is my one suggestion.
I suggest NOT penalizing the player for losing a match.
Increase the number of matches from 3 to 4 medals in order to advance to the next tiers. So by that account you need 12 wins to get out of the Bronze tiers, 12 wins for the silver tiers, 12 wins for the gold tiers, so on and so for. By doing this, you are still encouraging the player to play good and try their best to win matches but won't get penalized for losing and vaguely waste their time. If you win you get a medal. If you lose you don't get medal and won't have medals removed from progression.
I believe this will make 90% of the player base extremely happy and will encourage more spending by them. Win/win scenario for both parties.
That's like paying an amateur boxer more than a professional or giving a higher contract to a minor league baseball player than a professional. Sure their stats are good, but they are facing a far lower quality of opponents so they obviously don't get higher rewards than those at higher progression such as the professionals.
That's the part of your argument that you consistently refuse to accept. I will keep shouting that if you can't beat me,/ but don't have to face me, you don't deserve better rewards than me from now until BG is fixed.
A very silly situation.
Neither is 800k cav accounts easlily outperforming 3m paragon accounts. Despite what you may think those paragons are in 99% of cases much more skilled than those lower accounts. It isn't just roster strength
There are ways to fix it to make it reasonably equitable for everyone. We just have to keep banging on about it until we get something a bit more concrete from kabam.
Since he was incorrectly trying to speak for me, and interpreted my message as something completely different than what it was, I just needed to clarify.
You yourself have said in this Thread that they don't deserve the Rewards when they would lose against you.
I think you're having trouble staying on your own topic.
People compare the opponents they're facing with the ones higher Players are facing, but they're not facing them with the same Roster either.
The Matches are scaled within a close proximity of each other, given what both sides are using versus their own Opponents.
The comparison is one-sided. It's also self-serving. "They wouldn't last against my Account."
You're not lasting WITH your Account, and you expect people with less to be slaughtered just because you're not succeeding. (By you I mean the Royal "you".)
It's lacking perspective. They're not fighting Rosters 5 times their size, but neither are you. You're facing Rosters within the same range of what you're working with as they are.
I'm going to be blunt. If people spent more time on their own Matches than they did being jealous of the progress other people are making, they would progress more.