I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So staying in a lower progression with over inflated rosters is the way to go?.... Interesting...
A question on this. In the only other PVP mode, rewards are not gated by progression. It doesn't matter if you are Cav or TB or Paragon, if you are competitive in a particular AW tier then you get the rewards for that tier. Why should this be different in BG?
Actually, Alliance War rewards are gated to progression. In the loyalty store.
Historically, alliance mode rewards were not gated to progression. This is probably due to the simple fact that the developers did not deem this to be necessary at the beginning of time. Alliances were more homogenous then than now, and there were no stores for which costs could be easily balanced for progress. In AQ, for example, we just got map crystals. It is very difficult to balance a crystal for progress, because a crystal is a bit "chunky." Its hard to give 145% of a crystal. The simple approach was to simply give everyone the same rewards.
A common complaint - I was one of those that made it - was that the game was hostile to heterogenous alliances. If you had a wide spread of strength in your alliance (or for that matter timezones, lifestyles, favorite ice cream, etc) the game punished you in various structural ways. Why spent time trying to adjust every single alliance reward to every single alliance member when to a first order approximation they were all about the same anyway.
But as the game has evolved, the developers have taken opportunities to revisit those design decisions. When the glory store replaced much of the AQ rewards originally awarded with crystals, the devs were able to add significant per-player progression customization to AQ rewards. When they more recently added the loyalty store, which was primarily linked to AW, they also made that store progression-sensitive.
BG is newer than both, and doesn't have the historical baggage of both. The developers are free to use their current design thinking on how to structure its rewards, which both AQ and AW seem to reflect in ways that have to be evolutionary and not completely from scratch. Proportionately, far less of AW's rewards are progression sensitive, but I believe that's due less to a belief that they should be less sensitive, and more to the difficulty in modifying a controversial and entrenched game mode.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So staying in a lower progression with over inflated rosters is the way to go?.... Interesting...
You keep making that assessment as if anyone who is Cavalier is just sitting lazy, and that's not even what I'm talking about. Nor is it even a reasonable generalization for all Players at that stage.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
A question on this. In the only other PVP mode, rewards are not gated by progression. It doesn't matter if you are Cav or TB or Paragon, if you are competitive in a particular AW tier then you get the rewards for that tier. Why should this be different in BG?
Actually, Alliance War rewards are gated to progression. In the loyalty store.
Historically, alliance mode rewards were not gated to progression. This is probably due to the simple fact that the developers did not deem this to be necessary at the beginning of time. Alliances were more homogenous then than now, and there were no stores for which costs could be easily balanced for progress. In AQ, for example, we just got map crystals. It is very difficult to balance a crystal for progress, because a crystal is a bit "chunky." Its hard to give 145% of a crystal. The simple approach was to simply give everyone the same rewards.
A common complaint - I was one of those that made it - was that the game was hostile to heterogenous alliances. If you had a wide spread of strength in your alliance (or for that matter timezones, lifestyles, favorite ice cream, etc) the game punished you in various structural ways. Why spent time trying to adjust every single alliance reward to every single alliance member when to a first order approximation they were all about the same anyway.
But as the game has evolved, the developers have taken opportunities to revisit those design decisions. When the glory store replaced much of the AQ rewards originally awarded with crystals, the devs were able to add significant per-player progression customization to AQ rewards. When they more recently added the loyalty store, which was primarily linked to AW, they also made that store progression-sensitive.
BG is newer than both, and doesn't have the historical baggage of both. The developers are free to use their current design thinking on how to structure its rewards, which both AQ and AW seem to reflect in ways that have to be evolutionary and not completely from scratch. Proportionately, far less of AW's rewards are progression sensitive, but I believe that's due less to a belief that they should be less sensitive, and more to the difficulty in modifying a controversial and entrenched game mode.
This new SQ made me realize something that goes along the rewards DNA.. and its the fact that BG is the only place where all Progression levels are playing for the same currency/currency gain... Everytime there was a SOLO, event, quest or whatever you wanna call it... Lower progressions were gated to earn less and pay more at the store... Now they gain the same and pay more... There was always a key, an entry that didn't allow you to get the same ammount of currency as upper progressions and the prices were set depending your progression. Upper tiers gained more and had access to all with their lower price and also the choice to keep on buying the lower ones cause they could afford it.. BGs has changed that
A question on this. In the only other PVP mode, rewards are not gated by progression. It doesn't matter if you are Cav or TB or Paragon, if you are competitive in a particular AW tier then you get the rewards for that tier. Why should this be different in BG?
Actually, Alliance War rewards are gated to progression. In the loyalty store.
Historically, alliance mode rewards were not gated to progression. This is probably due to the simple fact that the developers did not deem this to be necessary at the beginning of time. Alliances were more homogenous then than now, and there were no stores for which costs could be easily balanced for progress. In AQ, for example, we just got map crystals. It is very difficult to balance a crystal for progress, because a crystal is a bit "chunky." Its hard to give 145% of a crystal. The simple approach was to simply give everyone the same rewards.
A common complaint - I was one of those that made it - was that the game was hostile to heterogenous alliances. If you had a wide spread of strength in your alliance (or for that matter timezones, lifestyles, favorite ice cream, etc) the game punished you in various structural ways. Why spent time trying to adjust every single alliance reward to every single alliance member when to a first order approximation they were all about the same anyway.
But as the game has evolved, the developers have taken opportunities to revisit those design decisions. When the glory store replaced much of the AQ rewards originally awarded with crystals, the devs were able to add significant per-player progression customization to AQ rewards. When they more recently added the loyalty store, which was primarily linked to AW, they also made that store progression-sensitive.
BG is newer than both, and doesn't have the historical baggage of both. The developers are free to use their current design thinking on how to structure its rewards, which both AQ and AW seem to reflect in ways that have to be evolutionary and not completely from scratch. Proportionately, far less of AW's rewards are progression sensitive, but I believe that's due less to a belief that they should be less sensitive, and more to the difficulty in modifying a controversial and entrenched game mode.
This new SQ made me realize something that goes along the rewards DNA.. and its the fact that BG is the only place where all Progression levels are playing for the same currency/currency gain... Everytime there was a SOLO, event, quest or whatever you wanna call it... Lower progressions were gated to earn less and pay more at the store... Now they gain the same and pay more... There was always a key, an entry that didn't allow you to get the same ammount of currency as upper progressions and the prices were set depending your progression. Upper tiers gained more and had access to all with their lower price and also the choice to keep on buying the lower ones cause they could afford it.. BGs has changed that
Not true. There have been a number of Events that simply limited what they could buy.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So staying in a lower progression with over inflated rosters is the way to go?.... Interesting...
You keep making that assessment as if anyone who is Cavalier is just sitting lazy, and that's not even what I'm talking about. Nor is it even a reasonable generalization for all Players at that stage.
I might be generalizing; but you are using YTbers as an example... So i cut wide and u cut extremely thin
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So Battlegrounds is testing the extensiveness of our rosters? Explain then why my main 3,9mil accounts placed P2 VT, while my alt 600k account reached GC? I suppose my alt have more extensive roster than my main 😂 VT at its current state is a joke, and it’s not only threatening BGs to enter the “death spiral”, but also MCOC in general, since it discourages roster advancement and furthermore spending. I stopped spending on my main account, since any spending currently is being punished by BGs. I can’t accept the fact that my ftp alt small account can place higher, in a supposed competitive mode.
A question on this. In the only other PVP mode, rewards are not gated by progression. It doesn't matter if you are Cav or TB or Paragon, if you are competitive in a particular AW tier then you get the rewards for that tier. Why should this be different in BG?
Actually, Alliance War rewards are gated to progression. In the loyalty store.
Historically, alliance mode rewards were not gated to progression. This is probably due to the simple fact that the developers did not deem this to be necessary at the beginning of time. Alliances were more homogenous then than now, and there were no stores for which costs could be easily balanced for progress. In AQ, for example, we just got map crystals. It is very difficult to balance a crystal for progress, because a crystal is a bit "chunky." Its hard to give 145% of a crystal. The simple approach was to simply give everyone the same rewards.
A common complaint - I was one of those that made it - was that the game was hostile to heterogenous alliances. If you had a wide spread of strength in your alliance (or for that matter timezones, lifestyles, favorite ice cream, etc) the game punished you in various structural ways. Why spent time trying to adjust every single alliance reward to every single alliance member when to a first order approximation they were all about the same anyway.
But as the game has evolved, the developers have taken opportunities to revisit those design decisions. When the glory store replaced much of the AQ rewards originally awarded with crystals, the devs were able to add significant per-player progression customization to AQ rewards. When they more recently added the loyalty store, which was primarily linked to AW, they also made that store progression-sensitive.
BG is newer than both, and doesn't have the historical baggage of both. The developers are free to use their current design thinking on how to structure its rewards, which both AQ and AW seem to reflect in ways that have to be evolutionary and not completely from scratch. Proportionately, far less of AW's rewards are progression sensitive, but I believe that's due less to a belief that they should be less sensitive, and more to the difficulty in modifying a controversial and entrenched game mode.
This new SQ made me realize something that goes along the rewards DNA.. and its the fact that BG is the only place where all Progression levels are playing for the same currency/currency gain... Everytime there was a SOLO, event, quest or whatever you wanna call it... Lower progressions were gated to earn less and pay more at the store... Now they gain the same and pay more... There was always a key, an entry that didn't allow you to get the same ammount of currency as upper progressions and the prices were set depending your progression. Upper tiers gained more and had access to all with their lower price and also the choice to keep on buying the lower ones cause they could afford it.. BGs has changed that
Not true. There have been a number of Events that simply limited what they could buy.
Name one.. name 1 event that UC, Cavs and TB got the same ammount of currency for participating, gained the exact same ammount and the only difference was the price at the store...
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
That statement is hilarious.. I would like to see a Paragon roster of someone who has 60 r2s and 3 r4s... Rofl
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
lol, you just changed your argument to be in favor of the prices being lower and then say I need to keep up. Clown Fiesta of a comment there GW.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
The people rushing end game content have a broad roster to back up trying such content... They also have done other content to actually have a stash of ranked up mats to rank up for that content... Now if u are talking about isolated cases like Seatin's journey with an f2p account . Yeah of course he is just ranking up what is suitable to rush it . That's an extremely isolated case, a case where he is purposely playing it that way..
When I said better roster should matter, im saying that if you work on your roster for years then you should have an inherent advantage over someone who has not, in a practical way that can be displayed in the setup of matches and in the actual fights (having better defenders, stronger defenders, better and stronger attackers).
The notion that gameplay should promote built-in imbalances is definitely a modern era thing. And it definitely is a major part of MCOC.
Actually, its as old as dirt.
In every competition, there are rules that stipulate what kind of advantages are "fair" advantages and what kind are "unfair" advantages. And while there is some objective thought there, the fundamental basis for these decisions is generally subjective. It expresses what the competition is even about.
If the point to a race is to see who can get from here to there the fastest, why is it cheating if I grab a bike off the street at pedal it to the finish line? If this is cheating because I'm not running and the point to the race is to see who can run the race the fastest, then should everyone who stops running be disqualified? You can nit-pick this to death, but in general most people don't. Instead, the parameters of a competition are decided mostly by informal convention and mutual agreement. We all know what a marathon is, and we only make enough rules to weed out the troublemakers.
The notion of what is a fair advantage and what is not has come up again and again. Think NASCAR. Think Major League Baseball. Think the Olympics. Think America's Cup racing. Even medieval jousting had rules on where and with what you could (or at least should) strike your opponent to knock them off their horse. Some advantages were considered fair, and some unfair.
Every competition decides which advantages are fair and which are not, and in doing so they implicitly define what the competition is about. If we define a BG competitor as a player and his or her account then my roster should be part of my strength, and it is not unfair if my roster is stronger than yours. That just means I as a competitor have one particular advantage. If conversely we decide it is not fair for a player to face another player with a stronger roster, then we're saying that BG competitors are not players with their accounts. We're saying the "competitor" is the player divorced from their account. Which would be an arbitrary choice, and one inconsistent with most of the rest of the game. The question then becomes, why not give everyone the same account, and just IROC the whole thing?
The problem for Kabam is that they want roster to matter. It is obvious one of BGs priorities is to incentivize roster development. The deck system, the shifting node structure, its all designed to encourage players to acquire and rank up a wide range of champions. For them, the option to nullify roster advantage doesn't exist, because it is incompatible with one of their primary design goals. We can debate if unbalanced roster match ups are fair or not until the cows come home, but they can't really do the same. They have to accept unbalanced roster match ups to at least some degree, or abandon their notions of BG incentivizing roster growth. They can't do both.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
lol, you just changed your argument to be in favor of the prices being lower and then say I need to keep up. Clown Fiesta of a comment there GW.
What argument? Not once did I complain it was that way. Go back and read.
I'm still waiting for you to name an event where currency gain was the same for all progression levels and only prices were different other than BGs.. @GroundedWisdom... Or are u just gonna argue and then ignore or let it pass when you get called out?...
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I'm still waiting for you to name an event where currency gain was the same for all progression levels and only prices were different other than BGs.. @GroundedWisdom... Or are u just gonna argue and then ignore or let it pass when you get called out?...
You want me to sift through every EQ and find examples? I'm quite positive it's happened before.
This new SQ made me realize something that goes along the rewards DNA.. and its the fact that BG is the only place where all Progression levels are playing for the same currency/currency gain...
I believe this is a necessity. Progress tier has always been a fuzzy metric to measure players, but it is completely fair game to measure progress itself. We make progressionally sensitive content with progressionally relevant rewards and call it a day. We know this is an imperfect system in one sense, but in the grand scheme of things its just the rules of the game.
However, that only makes sense in a PvE environment where the content is curated. In a PvP environment, "content" is not (completely) curated. The challenges you face are not based on developer designed content, but rather the strength and diversity of your competitors. And while we can at least attempt to sort players by progress tier when dealing with progressional content explicitly targeting those tiers, in a sense PvP games self-organize by the competitors. We can say that UC < Cav < TB < Paragon when it comes to PvE. We cannot say that in PvP, because PvP ignores progression tier and just tries to punch you in the face.
So in BG we don't have progressional content gating progressional rewards. We have competitive content gating progressional rewards. So I believe BG implements a compromise where everyone is competing for the same currency because we cannot (or don't want to) arbitrarily sentence a lower progress but stronger player to earning less currency, but we still price the store that currency is spent on based on progress tier.
It is a messy compromise, as most (system-level) game design decisions tend to be.
"Everytime there was a SOLO, event, quest or whatever you wanna call it... Lower progressions were gated to earn less and pay more at the store..."
I even put it in CAPS... Same way u told Ironman... Go back and read
You're changing the goal post. You said it's never been done in the game.
How am i changing the goal post when it says right there SOLO... Rofl... You are not just moving the goal post just to cover up for your false statements. .you are moving it and making it bigger just so you can score... Really AQ a collaboration of 30 people is the same as a Solo play mode?... So you claimed there was.. couldnt find one and u throw AQ rofl....
I'm still waiting for you to name an event where currency gain was the same for all progression levels and only prices were different other than BGs.. @GroundedWisdom... Or are u just gonna argue and then ignore or let it pass when you get called out?...
You want me to sift through every EQ and find examples? I'm quite positive it's happened before.
I'm quite positive you are wrong... Prove me wrong
If you think I'm wrong, the onus is on you to disprove it.
Actually.. u said i was wrong . Prove it... I said there was no event, quest or anything before that let everyone earn the same ammount and the only difference was the price at the store... U said there was.. the "onus" is on you to disprove it... Thats all u ever do.. make statements and deflect ..
I wish there was some sort of term for someone who purposely derails threads and makes baseless statements and refuses to back them up. Come on internet, get on it!
"Everytime there was a SOLO, event, quest or whatever you wanna call it... Lower progressions were gated to earn less and pay more at the store..."
I even put it in CAPS... Same way u told Ironman... Go back and read
You're changing the goal post. You said it's never been done in the game.
How am i changing the goal post when it says right there SOLO... Rofl... You are not just moving the goal post just to cover up for your false statements. .you are moving it and making it bigger just so you can score... Really AQ a collaboration of 30 people is the same as a Solo play mode?... So you claimed there was.. couldnt find one and u throw AQ rofl....
Read the comment that DNA quoted.
"This new SQ made me realize something that goes along the rewards DNA.. and its the fact that BG is the only place where all Progression levels are playing for the same currency/currency gain..."
Comments
Dr. Zola
Interesting...
Historically, alliance mode rewards were not gated to progression. This is probably due to the simple fact that the developers did not deem this to be necessary at the beginning of time. Alliances were more homogenous then than now, and there were no stores for which costs could be easily balanced for progress. In AQ, for example, we just got map crystals. It is very difficult to balance a crystal for progress, because a crystal is a bit "chunky." Its hard to give 145% of a crystal. The simple approach was to simply give everyone the same rewards.
A common complaint - I was one of those that made it - was that the game was hostile to heterogenous alliances. If you had a wide spread of strength in your alliance (or for that matter timezones, lifestyles, favorite ice cream, etc) the game punished you in various structural ways. Why spent time trying to adjust every single alliance reward to every single alliance member when to a first order approximation they were all about the same anyway.
But as the game has evolved, the developers have taken opportunities to revisit those design decisions. When the glory store replaced much of the AQ rewards originally awarded with crystals, the devs were able to add significant per-player progression customization to AQ rewards. When they more recently added the loyalty store, which was primarily linked to AW, they also made that store progression-sensitive.
BG is newer than both, and doesn't have the historical baggage of both. The developers are free to use their current design thinking on how to structure its rewards, which both AQ and AW seem to reflect in ways that have to be evolutionary and not completely from scratch. Proportionately, far less of AW's rewards are progression sensitive, but I believe that's due less to a belief that they should be less sensitive, and more to the difficulty in modifying a controversial and entrenched game mode.
Everytime there was a SOLO, event, quest or whatever you wanna call it... Lower progressions were gated to earn less and pay more at the store...
Now they gain the same and pay more...
There was always a key, an entry that didn't allow you to get the same ammount of currency as upper progressions and the prices were set depending your progression. Upper tiers gained more and had access to all with their lower price and also the choice to keep on buying the lower ones cause they could afford it.. BGs has changed that
Explain then why my main 3,9mil accounts placed P2 VT, while my alt 600k account reached GC?
I suppose my alt have more extensive roster than my main 😂
VT at its current state is a joke, and it’s not only threatening BGs to enter the “death spiral”, but also MCOC in general, since it discourages roster advancement and furthermore spending.
I stopped spending on my main account, since any spending currently is being punished by BGs.
I can’t accept the fact that my ftp alt small account can place higher, in a supposed competitive mode.
Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing.
Try to keep up.
They also have done other content to actually have a stash of ranked up mats to rank up for that content...
Now if u are talking about isolated cases like Seatin's journey with an f2p account . Yeah of course he is just ranking up what is suitable to rush it . That's an extremely isolated case, a case where he is purposely playing it that way..
In every competition, there are rules that stipulate what kind of advantages are "fair" advantages and what kind are "unfair" advantages. And while there is some objective thought there, the fundamental basis for these decisions is generally subjective. It expresses what the competition is even about.
If the point to a race is to see who can get from here to there the fastest, why is it cheating if I grab a bike off the street at pedal it to the finish line? If this is cheating because I'm not running and the point to the race is to see who can run the race the fastest, then should everyone who stops running be disqualified? You can nit-pick this to death, but in general most people don't. Instead, the parameters of a competition are decided mostly by informal convention and mutual agreement. We all know what a marathon is, and we only make enough rules to weed out the troublemakers.
The notion of what is a fair advantage and what is not has come up again and again. Think NASCAR. Think Major League Baseball. Think the Olympics. Think America's Cup racing. Even medieval jousting had rules on where and with what you could (or at least should) strike your opponent to knock them off their horse. Some advantages were considered fair, and some unfair.
Every competition decides which advantages are fair and which are not, and in doing so they implicitly define what the competition is about. If we define a BG competitor as a player and his or her account then my roster should be part of my strength, and it is not unfair if my roster is stronger than yours. That just means I as a competitor have one particular advantage. If conversely we decide it is not fair for a player to face another player with a stronger roster, then we're saying that BG competitors are not players with their accounts. We're saying the "competitor" is the player divorced from their account. Which would be an arbitrary choice, and one inconsistent with most of the rest of the game. The question then becomes, why not give everyone the same account, and just IROC the whole thing?
The problem for Kabam is that they want roster to matter. It is obvious one of BGs priorities is to incentivize roster development. The deck system, the shifting node structure, its all designed to encourage players to acquire and rank up a wide range of champions. For them, the option to nullify roster advantage doesn't exist, because it is incompatible with one of their primary design goals. We can debate if unbalanced roster match ups are fair or not until the cows come home, but they can't really do the same. They have to accept unbalanced roster match ups to at least some degree, or abandon their notions of BG incentivizing roster growth. They can't do both.
Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool.
If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon.
Nothing prohibit them to do so.
Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title.
Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards.
If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been.
If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that.
Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
However, that only makes sense in a PvE environment where the content is curated. In a PvP environment, "content" is not (completely) curated. The challenges you face are not based on developer designed content, but rather the strength and diversity of your competitors. And while we can at least attempt to sort players by progress tier when dealing with progressional content explicitly targeting those tiers, in a sense PvP games self-organize by the competitors. We can say that UC < Cav < TB < Paragon when it comes to PvE. We cannot say that in PvP, because PvP ignores progression tier and just tries to punch you in the face.
So in BG we don't have progressional content gating progressional rewards. We have competitive content gating progressional rewards. So I believe BG implements a compromise where everyone is competing for the same currency because we cannot (or don't want to) arbitrarily sentence a lower progress but stronger player to earning less currency, but we still price the store that currency is spent on based on progress tier.
It is a messy compromise, as most (system-level) game design decisions tend to be.
"Everytime there was a SOLO, event, quest or whatever you wanna call it... Lower progressions were gated to earn less and pay more at the store..."
I even put it in CAPS...
Same way u told Ironman... Go back and read
Really AQ a collaboration of 30 people is the same as a Solo play mode?... So you claimed there was.. couldnt find one and u throw AQ rofl....
"This new SQ made me realize something that goes along the rewards DNA.. and its the fact that BG is the only place where all Progression levels are playing for the same currency/currency gain..."