"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
If it will settle this particular dispute:
It has technically happened that all players of differing progression tiers have earned essentially the same currency but faced differing value while spending that currency, although this requires accepting a technicality. There have been events where all players gained more or less the same amount of a specific type of crystal shard. However, lower progress players could only trade those shards in for lesser crystals while higher progress players could trade them in for better ones. GMCs vs Cavs, say.
This requires considering shards as a type of currency, which they are not in MCOC terms but function as such in a limited capacity. As far as I'm aware, the game has never implemented this sort of thing to the degree that BG does: that's new. However, the mindset of hand everyone the same thing but then change what they can buy with it is something the devs have demonstrated historically that they are willing to do.
I'm done going back and forth with this aspect of the conversation. I find it ironic that people call me a troll and make comments to get a response from me. I'm going back to the actual flow of the conversation. Do what you like.
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 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 believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
"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
If it will settle this particular dispute:
It has technically happened that all players of differing progression tiers have earned essentially the same currency but faced differing value while spending that currency, although this requires accepting a technicality. There have been events where all players gained more or less the same amount of a specific type of crystal shard. However, lower progress players could only trade those shards in for lesser crystals while higher progress players could trade them in for better ones. GMCs vs Cavs, say.
This requires considering shards as a type of currency, which they are not in MCOC terms but function as such in a limited capacity. As far as I'm aware, the game has never implemented this sort of thing to the degree that BG does: that's new. However, the mindset of hand everyone the same thing but then change what they can buy with it is something the devs have demonstrated historically that they are willing to do.
Crystals are a total different thing.. it doesnt even have to be progression based as in CAVs or GM .. Look at the latests ones... The gifting tickets.. lower progression couldnt even reach the last milestone...rewards might be the same (the crystals) but they earned a lot less .. This new SQ... U earn less currency for doing lower sectors.. The ammount you could gain was never the same. Even cash deals are gated...
So u just read parts?.. it says SOLO in caps . Dont try to fit your narrative...If anything i was talking to DNA, u decided to read half of it butt in and make false statements.. u said your yourself its your onus to prove me wrong. AQ is not SOLO
All solo events give the same rewards for a given content. If you beat the GM you don't get lesser rewards if you don't have an R3. You can do incursions with any progression title and get the same items. Arena scores/battlechips/gold don't get adjusted lower if you are UC. You don't get more rewards for doing the Cav EQ as a TB or Paragon.
In SQ, you earn less if you play the easier content. You get the same currency for beating the same level. BG is the only place where people with higher titles expect that weaker players should face harder content and get lower rewards for doing so.
So u just read parts?.. it says SOLO in caps . Dont try to fit your narrative...If anything i was talking to DNA, u decided to read half of it butt in and make false statements.. u said your yourself its your onus to prove me wrong. AQ is not SOLO
All solo events give the same rewards for a given content. If you beat the GM you don't get lesser rewards if you don't have an R3. You can do incursions with any progression title and get the same items. Arena scores/battlechips/gold don't get adjusted lower if you are UC. You don't get more rewards for doing the Cav EQ as a TB or Paragon.
In SQ, you earn less if you play the easier content. You get the same currency for beating the same level. BG is the only place where people with higher titles expect that weaker players should face harder content and get lower rewards for doing so.
Beating the GM is an event .. U don't know the difference between events and permanent content.. Also i said events where u earn a currency... Not quest completion or exploration rewards..
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 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 believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Beating the GM is an event .. U don't know the difference between events and permanent content.. Also i said events where u earn a currency... Not quest completion or exploration rewards..
Which event gave lower currency for beating the same difficulty level of SQ?
EDIT: Anyway, let's agree to disagree on this. Doesn't matter what we think anyway, devs will decide the best course on this.
Beating the GM is an event .. U don't know the difference between events and permanent content.. Also i said events where u earn a currency... Not quest completion or exploration rewards..
Which event gave lower currency for beating the same difficulty level of SQ?
They couldnt do the same level cause it was gated...they always put a Key or a requirement .. The same way Cavs can't do TB difficulty right now. You are in a lower progression u earn less currency thru the quest or the milestones...
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 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 believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Because that's exactly what you're asking for.
If you don't start bigger rosters higher AND don't let smaller players fight the bigger players then you are in fact "petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time".
That difference is mostly superficial. The difference between first order currencies like gold and glory and crystal shards is mostly marginal. We have component-like resources like catalyst fragments that can really only be used to buy one thing: full catalysts. And then we have more full fledged currencies like Glory that can be used to purchase a wide range of things with significant player agency. Special crystal shards that can be used to buy a limited number of things are in the middle. Not really full fledged currency, but not really distinct from currency either. To the extent that the developers reflect their economic thinking with crystal shards, those ideas are generally fully reflective of their attitudes towards the wider game economy.
As I said, it is not exactly the same (because no two things ever are) but the more important point is that it reflects the idea of "equal stuff but different prices" in the same way the BG economy does, and is a reasonable precedent for it.
I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Because your definition of fairness is completely different from everyone elses, so the downside everyone presumes from the things you say are things you claim are simply naturally supposed to happen.
While we both at least appear to be willing to concede that a system that matched players by roster up to some point and then have alternate matching systems take over would be acceptable, I see that as conceding an unfair advantage in the early stages for some higher purposes, while you seem to believe this is terminating fair matching beyond a certain point for other reasons. Now that I know that, I'm willing to let that lie, but any further discussion anywhere below the surface will turn up this fundamental difference not just of opinion, but of the nature of reality.
In regard to win/loss ratio why can’t we have no penalty for loosing? Rather than have to win 3 matches in a row to move up a tier just have a system where you need to win 3 matches to move up and you don’t loose a trophy on being defeated? Win, loose, win, loose, win, loose just results in being permanently stuck in the same tier, and if you loose more than you win your consistently going backwards which is off putting to say the least.
In regard to win/loss ratio why can’t we have no penalty for loosing? Rather than have to win 3 matches in a row to move up a tier just have a system where you need to win 3 matches to move up and you don’t loose a trophy on being defeated? Win, loose, win, loose, win, loose just results in being permanently stuck in the same tier, and if you loose more than you win your consistently going backwards which is off putting to say the least.
So by day 15 with 5 matches a day and a 66% win rate, everyone is in GC....Not a competition
That difference is mostly superficial. The difference between first order currencies like gold and glory and crystal shards is mostly marginal. We have component-like resources like catalyst fragments that can really only be used to buy one thing: full catalysts. And then we have more full fledged currencies like Glory that can be used to purchase a wide range of things with significant player agency. Special crystal shards that can be used to buy a limited number of things are in the middle. Not really full fledged currency, but not really distinct from currency either. To the extent that the developers reflect their economic thinking with crystal shards, those ideas are generally fully reflective of their attitudes towards the wider game economy.
As I said, it is not exactly the same (because no two things ever are) but the more important point is that it reflects the idea of "equal stuff but different prices" in the same way the BG economy does, and is a reasonable precedent for it.
Extremely superficial, u can't compare the RNG of a GM or Cav crystal to a currency that buys u cerain things.
I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Because your definition of fairness is completely different from everyone elses, so the downside everyone presumes from the things you say are things you claim are simply naturally supposed to happen.
While we both at least appear to be willing to concede that a system that matched players by roster up to some point and then have alternate matching systems take over would be acceptable, I see that as conceding an unfair advantage in the early stages for some higher purposes, while you seem to believe this is terminating fair matching beyond a certain point for other reasons. Now that I know that, I'm willing to let that lie, but any further discussion anywhere below the surface will turn up this fundamental difference not just of opinion, but of the nature of reality.
I don't believe it's terminating fair Matching. I don't necessarily agree with the suggestion of starting halfway up, but I'm perfectly fine with ELO taking over. My main issue was some kind of reason to the beginning of the process, and I've been pretty consistent with Posts on here about unfairness in Patinum or higher. At that point, a Player should expect higher Matches and not even ones.
In regard to win/loss ratio why can’t we have no penalty for loosing? Rather than have to win 3 matches in a row to move up a tier just have a system where you need to win 3 matches to move up and you don’t loose a trophy on being defeated? Win, loose, win, loose, win, loose just results in being permanently stuck in the same tier, and if you loose more than you win your consistently going backwards which is off putting to say the least.
So by day 15 with 5 matches a day and a 66% win rate, everyone is in GC....Not a competition
To amplify, we could just add more trophy requirements to each tier to prevent players from just sailing into GC, but then the difference between a super strong player that wins 80% of the time and a very weak one that only wins 30% of the time would be too close.
There's a subtle mathematical discussion here that I'm just going to stomp all over, but the problem here is that in a certain sense, skill has diminishing returns. Imagine someone that has a 90% win rate. They win nine out of ten. Now imagine someone with a 99% win rate. They win ninety nine out of one hundred. Clearly the second player is way stronger than the first one. But how could we possibly tell? After ten matches the first guy wins nine and the other guy probably wins ten. After a hundred matches the first guy wins about 90 and the second guy wins about 99. The second guy might be ten times better but he's only winning about ten percent more matches.
If we tried to judge those two players by how many trophies they earned to get to GC, they would both cross the finish line at about the same time. The difference wouldn't really be noticeable. So in a sense, the second guy was getting nothing for his superior effort.
If I win three out of a hundred and you are twice as good as me, you might win six out of a hundred. Your superior skills would be reflected in our trophy earnings if we raced. But at some point, we both get so good that our strength is reflected not in how many we win, but rather in how few we lose. Once I'm winning more than 50 out of a hundred, there's no mathematical way for you to be "twice as good" in terms of earning trophies.
The top players are all compressed into a tiny wedge of win percentage, so winning any amount of trophies in a linear fashion won't allow them to distinguish themselves from each other. Thus, the win/loss system is designed to separate the good from the bad, and the great from the good, by making forward progress not linearly proportional to win rate, but closer to exponentially proportional to win percentage. 50% and 75% win percentage are fairly close in terms of how many wins they can get, but 75% progresses twice as fast as 50% when you factor in lost trophies.
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 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 believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
In regard to win/loss ratio why can’t we have no penalty for loosing? Rather than have to win 3 matches in a row to move up a tier just have a system where you need to win 3 matches to move up and you don’t loose a trophy on being defeated? Win, loose, win, loose, win, loose just results in being permanently stuck in the same tier, and if you loose more than you win your consistently going backwards which is off putting to say the least.
So by day 15 with 5 matches a day and a 66% win rate, everyone is in GC....Not a competition
1 - Everyone literally can't have a % win rate. 2 - The VT isn't really a competition, it's a ladder to climb to get to the competition.
That difference is mostly superficial. The difference between first order currencies like gold and glory and crystal shards is mostly marginal. We have component-like resources like catalyst fragments that can really only be used to buy one thing: full catalysts. And then we have more full fledged currencies like Glory that can be used to purchase a wide range of things with significant player agency. Special crystal shards that can be used to buy a limited number of things are in the middle. Not really full fledged currency, but not really distinct from currency either. To the extent that the developers reflect their economic thinking with crystal shards, those ideas are generally fully reflective of their attitudes towards the wider game economy.
As I said, it is not exactly the same (because no two things ever are) but the more important point is that it reflects the idea of "equal stuff but different prices" in the same way the BG economy does, and is a reasonable precedent for it.
Extremely superficial, u can't compare the RNG of a GM or Cav crystal to a currency that buys u cerain things.
Are you saying you would like to revise your statement from trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had difference prices associated with that currency to trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had different prices associated with that currency and wasn't buying items that had a random chance component to them? Because if so I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I also cannot think of a reason why I would want to, as I don't see what such a narrow example would demonstrate either way.
I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Because your definition of fairness is completely different from everyone elses, so the downside everyone presumes from the things you say are things you claim are simply naturally supposed to happen.
While we both at least appear to be willing to concede that a system that matched players by roster up to some point and then have alternate matching systems take over would be acceptable, I see that as conceding an unfair advantage in the early stages for some higher purposes, while you seem to believe this is terminating fair matching beyond a certain point for other reasons. Now that I know that, I'm willing to let that lie, but any further discussion anywhere below the surface will turn up this fundamental difference not just of opinion, but of the nature of reality.
I don't believe it's terminating fair Matching. I don't necessarily agree with the suggestion of starting halfway up, but I'm perfectly fine with ELO taking over. My main issue was some kind of reason to the beginning of the process, and I've been pretty consistent with Posts on here about unfairness in Patinum or higher. At that point, a Player should expect higher Matches and not even ones.
"I've been pretty consistent with Posts on here about unfairness in Patinum or higher. At that point, a Player should expect higher Matches and not even ones."
As I said, this one statement is the thing that gets wedged open when it comes to discussing the why as opposed to the what.
That difference is mostly superficial. The difference between first order currencies like gold and glory and crystal shards is mostly marginal. We have component-like resources like catalyst fragments that can really only be used to buy one thing: full catalysts. And then we have more full fledged currencies like Glory that can be used to purchase a wide range of things with significant player agency. Special crystal shards that can be used to buy a limited number of things are in the middle. Not really full fledged currency, but not really distinct from currency either. To the extent that the developers reflect their economic thinking with crystal shards, those ideas are generally fully reflective of their attitudes towards the wider game economy.
As I said, it is not exactly the same (because no two things ever are) but the more important point is that it reflects the idea of "equal stuff but different prices" in the same way the BG economy does, and is a reasonable precedent for it.
Extremely superficial, u can't compare the RNG of a GM or Cav crystal to a currency that buys u cerain things.
Are you saying you would like to revise your statement from trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had difference prices associated with that currency to trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had different prices associated with that currency and wasn't buying items that had a random chance component to them? Because if so I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I also cannot think of a reason why I would want to, as I don't see what such a narrow example would demonstrate either way.
I'm not gonna ask u to do it, cause u won't find any. BGs is the only anomaly that has 4 progression levels earning the same for a SOLO game mode
I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Because your definition of fairness is completely different from everyone elses, so the downside everyone presumes from the things you say are things you claim are simply naturally supposed to happen.
While we both at least appear to be willing to concede that a system that matched players by roster up to some point and then have alternate matching systems take over would be acceptable, I see that as conceding an unfair advantage in the early stages for some higher purposes, while you seem to believe this is terminating fair matching beyond a certain point for other reasons. Now that I know that, I'm willing to let that lie, but any further discussion anywhere below the surface will turn up this fundamental difference not just of opinion, but of the nature of reality.
I don't believe it's terminating fair Matching. I don't necessarily agree with the suggestion of starting halfway up, but I'm perfectly fine with ELO taking over. My main issue was some kind of reason to the beginning of the process, and I've been pretty consistent with Posts on here about unfairness in Patinum or higher. At that point, a Player should expect higher Matches and not even ones.
"I've been pretty consistent with Posts on here about unfairness in Patinum or higher. At that point, a Player should expect higher Matches and not even ones."
As I said, this one statement is the thing that gets wedged open when it comes to discussing the why as opposed to the what.
Exactly .. Paragon get tough matches from day 1 in bronze 3 to GC, but poor lower progression guys who cant get out of plat or diamond after collecting approximately 20k worth of trophies...
I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Because your definition of fairness is completely different from everyone elses, so the downside everyone presumes from the things you say are things you claim are simply naturally supposed to happen.
While we both at least appear to be willing to concede that a system that matched players by roster up to some point and then have alternate matching systems take over would be acceptable, I see that as conceding an unfair advantage in the early stages for some higher purposes, while you seem to believe this is terminating fair matching beyond a certain point for other reasons. Now that I know that, I'm willing to let that lie, but any further discussion anywhere below the surface will turn up this fundamental difference not just of opinion, but of the nature of reality.
I don't believe it's terminating fair Matching. I don't necessarily agree with the suggestion of starting halfway up, but I'm perfectly fine with ELO taking over. My main issue was some kind of reason to the beginning of the process, and I've been pretty consistent with Posts on here about unfairness in Patinum or higher. At that point, a Player should expect higher Matches and not even ones.
"I've been pretty consistent with Posts on here about unfairness in Patinum or higher. At that point, a Player should expect higher Matches and not even ones."
As I said, this one statement is the thing that gets wedged open when it comes to discussing the why as opposed to the what.
I meant for lower to mid Players wanting even Matches at that point.
@Stature The sticking point there is that you're saying "the same content" but it's not. Low folks are doing easier fights for the same rewards.
One of the things that I think causes some people to have a different perspective on this is the fact that some people see a difference between fighting against easier defenders in BG or AW, and fighting against easier defenders in PvE content.
Is there a difference between fighting against Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ and fighting against my 6* defenders in BG? For the purposes of discussing difficulty, I say no. I think most people would say no. But there are some people who say yes.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Would it make a difference if I was working for Kabam? Suppose I was hired to be a BG opponent in battlegrounds. So I'm no longer a player competitor, I'm in effect a content designer. I design decks for players to fight, and I act as the server to draft opponents and fight in the AI's place. Is there a difference between fighting against my Cav account and my Paragon account, vs playing Cav difficulty and TB difficulty in EQ? If so, what is it?
If you deserve more rewards for beating TB difficulty than Cav difficulty, you should probably deserve more rewards for beating DNA's Paragon tier BG opponent vs DNA's Cav tier BG opponent. But that's what's happening now, only Kabam keeps forgetting to send me checks. We the competitors are all, in a sense, creating the challenge content for Kabam when we act as opponents for other players. That's what we are all doing for each other. So why shouldn't players get some sort of advantage or reward boost for defeating the harder content we are all creating in BG?
I'm not specifically advocating for higher rewards for higher progress players. But I do recognize the difficulty difference, and it is something I tried to respond to in my original suggestions. Not specifically by handing out more rewards, but in other structural ways.
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 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 believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
In regard to win/loss ratio why can’t we have no penalty for loosing? Rather than have to win 3 matches in a row to move up a tier just have a system where you need to win 3 matches to move up and you don’t loose a trophy on being defeated? Win, loose, win, loose, win, loose just results in being permanently stuck in the same tier, and if you loose more than you win your consistently going backwards which is off putting to say the least.
So by day 15 with 5 matches a day and a 66% win rate, everyone is in GC....Not a competition
1 - Everyone literally can't have a % win rate. 2 - The VT isn't really a competition, it's a ladder to climb to get to the competition.
1- In a 1 on 1 u cant have a win rate.. have 3 people and it starts being possible... DNA can beat u 3/5, u can beat me 3/5 and then I can beat DNA 3/5... 2- If they are on my way to GC I consider them competitions...
@Stature The sticking point there is that you're saying "the same content" but it's not. Low folks are doing easier fights for the same rewards.
One of the things that I think causes some people to have a different perspective on this is the fact that some people see a difference between fighting against easier defenders in BG or AW, and fighting against easier defenders in PvE content.
Is there a difference between fighting against Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ and fighting against my 6* defenders in BG? For the purposes of discussing difficulty, I say no. I think most people would say no. But there are some people who say yes.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Would it make a difference if I was working for Kabam? Suppose I was hired to be a BG opponent in battlegrounds. So I'm no longer a player competitor, I'm in effect a content designer. I design decks for players to fight, and I act as the server to draft opponents and fight in the AI's place. Is there a difference between fighting against my Cav account and my Paragon account, vs playing Cav difficulty and TB difficulty in EQ? If so, what is it?
If you deserve more rewards for beating TB difficulty than Cav difficulty, you should probably deserve more rewards for beating DNA's Paragon tier BG opponent vs DNA's Cav tier BG opponent. But that's what's happening now, only Kabam keeps forgetting to send me checks. We the competitors are all, in a sense, creating the challenge content for Kabam when we act as opponents for other players. That's what we are all doing for each other. So why shouldn't players get some sort of advantage or reward boost for defeating the harder content we are all creating in BG?
I'm not specifically advocating for higher rewards for higher progress players. But I do recognize the difficulty difference, and it is something I tried to respond to in my original suggestions. Not specifically by handing out more rewards, but in other structural ways.
This is a point I tried to make previously in a comment to GW in another thread. Saying that a lower roster strength person is facing the same difficulty facing another lower roster strength person as compared to a high tier paragon vs paragon matchup is like saying an uncollected account should get the same rewards for exploring UC difficulty tier of monthly quest as a paragon gets for clearing TB quest since they are working with the same relative difficulty.
@Stature The sticking point there is that you're saying "the same content" but it's not. Low folks are doing easier fights for the same rewards.
One of the things that I think causes some people to have a different perspective on this is the fact that some people see a difference between fighting against easier defenders in BG or AW, and fighting against easier defenders in PvE content.
Is there a difference between fighting against Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ and fighting against my 6* defenders in BG? For the purposes of discussing difficulty, I say no. I think most people would say no. But there are some people who say yes.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Would it make a difference if I was working for Kabam? Suppose I was hired to be a BG opponent in battlegrounds. So I'm no longer a player competitor, I'm in effect a content designer. I design decks for players to fight, and I act as the server to draft opponents and fight in the AI's place. Is there a difference between fighting against my Cav account and my Paragon account, vs playing Cav difficulty and TB difficulty in EQ? If so, what is it?
If you deserve more rewards for beating TB difficulty than Cav difficulty, you should probably deserve more rewards for beating DNA's Paragon tier BG opponent vs DNA's Cav tier BG opponent. But that's what's happening now, only Kabam keeps forgetting to send me checks. We the competitors are all, in a sense, creating the challenge content for Kabam when we act as opponents for other players. That's what we are all doing for each other. So why shouldn't players get some sort of advantage or reward boost for defeating the harder content we are all creating in BG?
I'm not specifically advocating for higher rewards for higher progress players. But I do recognize the difficulty difference, and it is something I tried to respond to in my original suggestions. Not specifically by handing out more rewards, but in other structural ways.
This is a point I tried to make previously in a comment to GW in another thread. Saying that a lower roster strength person is facing the same difficulty facing another lower roster strength person as compared to a high tier paragon vs paragon matchup is like saying an uncollected account should get the same rewards for exploring UC difficulty tier of monthly quest as a paragon gets for clearing TB quest since they are working with the same relative difficulty.
What I said was it's different, but not to the extent that people are saying. We don't need to rehash it here, but the comparative increase in difficulty is similar. You can't logically look at a Match with a lower Player and say they're easy compared to what you're using. You have to look at what they come up against with what they have, and compare that to what you come up against with what you have. I've heard the assertion many times and it almost always omits the other side of the equation.
Comments
It has technically happened that all players of differing progression tiers have earned essentially the same currency but faced differing value while spending that currency, although this requires accepting a technicality. There have been events where all players gained more or less the same amount of a specific type of crystal shard. However, lower progress players could only trade those shards in for lesser crystals while higher progress players could trade them in for better ones. GMCs vs Cavs, say.
This requires considering shards as a type of currency, which they are not in MCOC terms but function as such in a limited capacity. As far as I'm aware, the game has never implemented this sort of thing to the degree that BG does: that's new. However, the mindset of hand everyone the same thing but then change what they can buy with it is something the devs have demonstrated historically that they are willing to do.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
Look at the latests ones...
The gifting tickets.. lower progression couldnt even reach the last milestone...rewards might be the same (the crystals) but they earned a lot less ..
This new SQ... U earn less currency for doing lower sectors..
The ammount you could gain was never the same.
Even cash deals are gated...
In SQ, you earn less if you play the easier content. You get the same currency for beating the same level. BG is the only place where people with higher titles expect that weaker players should face harder content and get lower rewards for doing so.
U don't know the difference between events and permanent content..
Also i said events where u earn a currency... Not quest completion or exploration rewards..
The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system.
I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
EDIT: Anyway, let's agree to disagree on this. Doesn't matter what we think anyway, devs will decide the best course on this.
The same way Cavs can't do TB difficulty right now.
You are in a lower progression u earn less currency thru the quest or the milestones...
If you don't start bigger rosters higher AND don't let smaller players fight the bigger players then you are in fact "petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time".
Do you seriously not see that?
As I said, it is not exactly the same (because no two things ever are) but the more important point is that it reflects the idea of "equal stuff but different prices" in the same way the BG economy does, and is a reasonable precedent for it.
While we both at least appear to be willing to concede that a system that matched players by roster up to some point and then have alternate matching systems take over would be acceptable, I see that as conceding an unfair advantage in the early stages for some higher purposes, while you seem to believe this is terminating fair matching beyond a certain point for other reasons. Now that I know that, I'm willing to let that lie, but any further discussion anywhere below the surface will turn up this fundamental difference not just of opinion, but of the nature of reality.
There's a subtle mathematical discussion here that I'm just going to stomp all over, but the problem here is that in a certain sense, skill has diminishing returns. Imagine someone that has a 90% win rate. They win nine out of ten. Now imagine someone with a 99% win rate. They win ninety nine out of one hundred. Clearly the second player is way stronger than the first one. But how could we possibly tell? After ten matches the first guy wins nine and the other guy probably wins ten. After a hundred matches the first guy wins about 90 and the second guy wins about 99. The second guy might be ten times better but he's only winning about ten percent more matches.
If we tried to judge those two players by how many trophies they earned to get to GC, they would both cross the finish line at about the same time. The difference wouldn't really be noticeable. So in a sense, the second guy was getting nothing for his superior effort.
If I win three out of a hundred and you are twice as good as me, you might win six out of a hundred. Your superior skills would be reflected in our trophy earnings if we raced. But at some point, we both get so good that our strength is reflected not in how many we win, but rather in how few we lose. Once I'm winning more than 50 out of a hundred, there's no mathematical way for you to be "twice as good" in terms of earning trophies.
The top players are all compressed into a tiny wedge of win percentage, so winning any amount of trophies in a linear fashion won't allow them to distinguish themselves from each other. Thus, the win/loss system is designed to separate the good from the bad, and the great from the good, by making forward progress not linearly proportional to win rate, but closer to exponentially proportional to win percentage. 50% and 75% win percentage are fairly close in terms of how many wins they can get, but 75% progresses twice as fast as 50% when you factor in lost trophies.
2 - The VT isn't really a competition, it's a ladder to climb to get to the competition.
As I said, this one statement is the thing that gets wedged open when it comes to discussing the why as opposed to the what.
Paragon get tough matches from day 1 in bronze 3 to GC, but poor lower progression guys who cant get out of plat or diamond after collecting approximately 20k worth of trophies...
Is there a difference between fighting against Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ and fighting against my 6* defenders in BG? For the purposes of discussing difficulty, I say no. I think most people would say no. But there are some people who say yes.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Would it make a difference if I was working for Kabam? Suppose I was hired to be a BG opponent in battlegrounds. So I'm no longer a player competitor, I'm in effect a content designer. I design decks for players to fight, and I act as the server to draft opponents and fight in the AI's place. Is there a difference between fighting against my Cav account and my Paragon account, vs playing Cav difficulty and TB difficulty in EQ? If so, what is it?
If you deserve more rewards for beating TB difficulty than Cav difficulty, you should probably deserve more rewards for beating DNA's Paragon tier BG opponent vs DNA's Cav tier BG opponent. But that's what's happening now, only Kabam keeps forgetting to send me checks. We the competitors are all, in a sense, creating the challenge content for Kabam when we act as opponents for other players. That's what we are all doing for each other. So why shouldn't players get some sort of advantage or reward boost for defeating the harder content we are all creating in BG?
I'm not specifically advocating for higher rewards for higher progress players. But I do recognize the difficulty difference, and it is something I tried to respond to in my original suggestions. Not specifically by handing out more rewards, but in other structural ways.
2- If they are on my way to GC I consider them competitions...