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.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Oh so now you have a competition... Competing for top spots means dog eat dog... Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
For top spots? In Bronze to Gold of the VT? K buds.
Bronze, Gold and all the precious metals out there.. Can i get to GC without going thru all those?.... Your position is clear.. u want the lower progression to have it "easy" or "fair" up to plat or diamond... Do you understand that some Paragons couldn't even get out of silver or gold?... Are u implying its lack of skill?...
Evidently it's a lack of something or they would be making more progress. That has nothing to do with anyone else and their Matches. The system is pretty clear. You win, you move up.
See this is where i wonder if u actually play the game .. The gap between UC and most Cavs is not the same as TB to Paragon ...the gap is just 3 R4s in a deck of 30... Now there is a bigger gap between Paragon and Whale Paragons... It could be a deck with 15 r4s and 5 r4s... And that's all Paragons are matching in this Bogus matchmaking system... So yeah I guess Cavs that get to Diamond have a lot more skills than Paragons that get stuck in Gold... So much skills the moment they get matched with one that takes away their tier climbing coin they take a screenshot and come to the forums to complain about unfair matchmaking Like i said.. 7* and multiple r5s are comming.. its gonna get worse It's a lack of something ...yeah a system that caters to them as well as lower progression that's what is lacking...
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.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Oh so now you have a competition... Competing for top spots means dog eat dog... Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
For top spots? In Bronze to Gold of the VT? K buds.
Bronze, Gold and all the precious metals out there.. Can i get to GC without going thru all those?.... Your position is clear.. u want the lower progression to have it "easy" or "fair" up to plat or diamond... Do you understand that some Paragons couldn't even get out of silver or gold?... Are u implying its lack of skill?...
Evidently it's a lack of something or they would be making more progress. That has nothing to do with anyone else and their Matches. The system is pretty clear. You win, you move up.
See this is where i wonder if u actually play the game .. The gap between UC and most Cavs is not the same as TB to Paragon ...the gap is just 3 R4s in a deck of 30... Now there is a bigger gap between Paragon and Whale Paragons... It could be a deck with 15 r4s and 5 r4s... And that's all Paragons are matching in this Bogus matchmaking system... So yeah I guess Cavs that get to Diamond have a lot more skills than Paragons that get stuck in Gold... So much skills the moment they get matched with one that takes away their tier climbing coin they take a screenshot and come to the forums to complain about unfair matchmaking Like i said.. 7* and multiple r5s are comming.. its gonna get worse It's a lack of something ...yeah a system that caters to them as well as lower progression that's what is lacking...
Again, you keep coming back with a comparison that has nothing to do with people winning their own Matches. First off, you don't know that the only gap is 3 R3s. There is a myriad of differences in that and a Title doesn't dictate everything. It's just a general progress marker. Secondly, "Prestige", modified Prestige, or whatever mechanic has been used, means the range between Accounts is roughly the same. Give or take within that range. So it's not as vast as you're implying, and it's the same difference for either side. That has variables, sure. Not to the extent that's being exaggerated. Either way you look at it, people are not just more skilled because they have Titles. Generally speaking, they're probably more skilled. That doesn't mean a Paragon MUST advance regardless of their own individual results.
Evidently it's a lack of something or they would be making more progress. That has nothing to do with anyone else and their Matches. The system is pretty clear. You win, you move up.
This is obviously not true. The rate at which you win matters. A lot of Paragons in Bronze and Silver were winning. Just not enough and at least partly because of who they are getting matched against. That is the main point of contention here.
There is a cap in terms of roster strength. Beyond a point the gains are very marginal while roster growth (both on strength and diversity) is much faster at lower levels. Two 8-10K prestige accounts can be vastly different in terms of champion composition. At 15K, the difference would be marginal.
The progress of the 15K account might not have anything to do with the matches of the 8-10K account. But it definitely is impacted by the other 15K accounts they are being matched against. A 9K account playing opponents in the 8-10K range is not same as a 15K account playing in the 14-16K range.
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.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Oh so now you have a competition... Competing for top spots means dog eat dog... Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
For top spots? In Bronze to Gold of the VT? K buds.
Bronze, Gold and all the precious metals out there.. Can i get to GC without going thru all those?.... Your position is clear.. u want the lower progression to have it "easy" or "fair" up to plat or diamond... Do you understand that some Paragons couldn't even get out of silver or gold?... Are u implying its lack of skill?...
Evidently it's a lack of something or they would be making more progress. That has nothing to do with anyone else and their Matches. The system is pretty clear. You win, you move up.
See this is where i wonder if u actually play the game .. The gap between UC and most Cavs is not the same as TB to Paragon ...the gap is just 3 R4s in a deck of 30... Now there is a bigger gap between Paragon and Whale Paragons... It could be a deck with 15 r4s and 5 r4s... And that's all Paragons are matching in this Bogus matchmaking system... So yeah I guess Cavs that get to Diamond have a lot more skills than Paragons that get stuck in Gold... So much skills the moment they get matched with one that takes away their tier climbing coin they take a screenshot and come to the forums to complain about unfair matchmaking Like i said.. 7* and multiple r5s are comming.. its gonna get worse It's a lack of something ...yeah a system that caters to them as well as lower progression that's what is lacking...
Again, you keep coming back with a comparison that has nothing to do with people winning their own Matches. First off, you don't know that the only gap is 3 R3s. There is a myriad of differences in that and a Title doesn't dictate everything. It's just a general progress marker. Secondly, "Prestige", modified Prestige, or whatever mechanic has been used, means the range between Accounts is roughly the same. Give or take within that range. So it's not as vast as you're implying, and it's the same difference for either side. That has variables, sure. Not to the extent that's being exaggerated. Either way you look at it, people are not just more skilled because they have Titles. Generally speaking, they're probably more skilled. That doesn't mean a Paragon MUST advance regardless of their own individual results.
You shouldn't talk about Paragon problems when you are not one... You shouldn't talk about the struggle to get to GC as a Paragon when you didn't get there as a TB... My claims come from personal experience along with the experience my alliance mates had... Yours comes from assumptions. How dare u talk about "the lack of" on something you couldnt overcome yourself...
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.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
Like I said, I’ve been away from the thread and figured I would revisit. I’m just trying to get a handle on actual positions people have and actual solutions people have suggested.
Your comment illustrates the tension between a general view and a more detailed one focused on digging down into actual mechanics and how things might work. @DNA3000 (I believe) wanted this thread to focus on actual implementable ideas, rather than just conceptual objections. I agree that staggered starts are one type of actual mechanic to consider (and one used in multiple real world contexts like marathons).
In service of trying to get it back on track, I think it’s helpful to restore some collegiality and get folks on the record for specifics they support. That’s all I’m trying to do.
Dr. Zola
It just impossible.. there is absolute no way to have a fair competing ground when you are putting 4 different progression levels competing... Its like putting peewee, high school varsity, minor league and major league in the same competition... Its just not possible ..
I agree with you in concept. What’s tricky is how you actually deal with that reality when you have to structure BG matchmaking. I will summarize some of my basic thinking.
I think the current matching doesn’t work because a significant part of the rewards from playing are actually earned by progressing—somewhere around 40-50K BG tokens all way through the VT. Add in the very generous BG store and you have an asymmetrical bias towards smaller (not necessarily less experienced) accounts. For reference, I just played a full BG season and got a few thousand tokens as my alliance season prize.
As a result, I think the current formulation penalizes larger, deeper, more veteran accounts. And I think it does so all the way into the GC (ask your GC friends if they faced many small accounts in GC). Everyone gets ranked at season end, even those of us in Diamond on down. Fast-tracking some accounts to GC affects the rankings of everyone below them.
If that’s the policy decision made for this mode by the game team—namely, to fast track smaller accounts—then that’s their call. But it should be done transparently.
Things like ELO, staggered starts, seeding or some of the other suggestions bandied about a few days ago are worthy things to pick at and discuss. Is it better to give some players a “pass” based on previous seasons? Is it fair to force small accounts to encounter a few larger ones at the outset? Do we want to clear out larger accounts early so smaller accounts can make their way through Bronze and Silver earlier?
What works best? That’s the purpose of @DNA3000 ’s thread. I’m all for ideas and proposals for how things can be fairer for all accounts. I like the idea of ELO and staggered starts in combination, but I’d like to explore more about how that works in practice.
I also think—beyond BGs—the stores for the other game modes need updating to reduce pressure to play BGs (unlikely, I know, because it will probably lead to less participation in BGs). If we are honest about QoL and building a game where it’s impossible to do everything, then improve the options for Loyalty, Glory, etc. People shouldn’t feel forced to do BGs to keep up.
One thing I am certain of: I’m disappointed with how this thread has devolved into the same old conceptual tribalism. We can do better.
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.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Oh so now you have a competition... Competing for top spots means dog eat dog... Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
For top spots? In Bronze to Gold of the VT? K buds.
Bronze, Gold and all the precious metals out there.. Can i get to GC without going thru all those?.... Your position is clear.. u want the lower progression to have it "easy" or "fair" up to plat or diamond... Do you understand that some Paragons couldn't even get out of silver or gold?... Are u implying its lack of skill?...
Evidently it's a lack of something or they would be making more progress. That has nothing to do with anyone else and their Matches. The system is pretty clear. You win, you move up.
See this is where i wonder if u actually play the game .. The gap between UC and most Cavs is not the same as TB to Paragon ...the gap is just 3 R4s in a deck of 30... Now there is a bigger gap between Paragon and Whale Paragons... It could be a deck with 15 r4s and 5 r4s... And that's all Paragons are matching in this Bogus matchmaking system... So yeah I guess Cavs that get to Diamond have a lot more skills than Paragons that get stuck in Gold... So much skills the moment they get matched with one that takes away their tier climbing coin they take a screenshot and come to the forums to complain about unfair matchmaking Like i said.. 7* and multiple r5s are comming.. its gonna get worse It's a lack of something ...yeah a system that caters to them as well as lower progression that's what is lacking...
Again, you keep coming back with a comparison that has nothing to do with people winning their own Matches. First off, you don't know that the only gap is 3 R3s. There is a myriad of differences in that and a Title doesn't dictate everything. It's just a general progress marker. Secondly, "Prestige", modified Prestige, or whatever mechanic has been used, means the range between Accounts is roughly the same. Give or take within that range. So it's not as vast as you're implying, and it's the same difference for either side. That has variables, sure. Not to the extent that's being exaggerated. Either way you look at it, people are not just more skilled because they have Titles. Generally speaking, they're probably more skilled. That doesn't mean a Paragon MUST advance regardless of their own individual results.
You shouldn't talk about Paragon problems when you are not one... You shouldn't talk about the struggle to get to GC as a Paragon when you didn't get there as a TB... My claims come from personal experience along with the experience my alliance mates had... Yours comes from assumptions.
Wait. So you engage in a discussion with me, and tell me I shouldn't discuss it because I have the second-highest Title? That's pretty juvenile.
Evidently it's a lack of something or they would be making more progress. That has nothing to do with anyone else and their Matches. The system is pretty clear. You win, you move up.
This is obviously not true. The rate at which you win matters. A lot of Paragons in Bronze and Silver were winning. Just not enough and at least partly because of who they are getting matched against. That is the main point of contention here.
There is a cap in terms of roster strength. Beyond a point the gains are very marginal while roster growth (both on strength and diversity) is much faster at lower levels. Two 8-10K prestige accounts can be vastly different in terms of champion composition. At 15K, the difference would be marginal.
The progress of the 15K account might not have anything to do with the matches of the 8-10K account. But it definitely is impacted by the other 15K accounts they are being matched against. A 9K account playing opponents in the 8-10K range is not same as a 15K account playing in the 14-16K range.
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
Unless you're talking about seasoned Players running Alts that assert it's easier, and you can't use that as the basis for Players without years of experience in their Mains. It's not the same.
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.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Oh so now you have a competition... Competing for top spots means dog eat dog... Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
For top spots? In Bronze to Gold of the VT? K buds.
Bronze, Gold and all the precious metals out there.. Can i get to GC without going thru all those?.... Your position is clear.. u want the lower progression to have it "easy" or "fair" up to plat or diamond... Do you understand that some Paragons couldn't even get out of silver or gold?... Are u implying its lack of skill?...
Evidently it's a lack of something or they would be making more progress. That has nothing to do with anyone else and their Matches. The system is pretty clear. You win, you move up.
See this is where i wonder if u actually play the game .. The gap between UC and most Cavs is not the same as TB to Paragon ...the gap is just 3 R4s in a deck of 30... Now there is a bigger gap between Paragon and Whale Paragons... It could be a deck with 15 r4s and 5 r4s... And that's all Paragons are matching in this Bogus matchmaking system... So yeah I guess Cavs that get to Diamond have a lot more skills than Paragons that get stuck in Gold... So much skills the moment they get matched with one that takes away their tier climbing coin they take a screenshot and come to the forums to complain about unfair matchmaking Like i said.. 7* and multiple r5s are comming.. its gonna get worse It's a lack of something ...yeah a system that caters to them as well as lower progression that's what is lacking...
Again, you keep coming back with a comparison that has nothing to do with people winning their own Matches. First off, you don't know that the only gap is 3 R3s. There is a myriad of differences in that and a Title doesn't dictate everything. It's just a general progress marker. Secondly, "Prestige", modified Prestige, or whatever mechanic has been used, means the range between Accounts is roughly the same. Give or take within that range. So it's not as vast as you're implying, and it's the same difference for either side. That has variables, sure. Not to the extent that's being exaggerated. Either way you look at it, people are not just more skilled because they have Titles. Generally speaking, they're probably more skilled. That doesn't mean a Paragon MUST advance regardless of their own individual results.
You shouldn't talk about Paragon problems when you are not one... You shouldn't talk about the struggle to get to GC as a Paragon when you didn't get there as a TB... My claims come from personal experience along with the experience my alliance mates had... Yours comes from assumptions.
Wait. So you engage in a discussion with me, and tell me I shouldn't discuss it because I have the second-highest Title? That's pretty juvenile.
Evidently it's a lack of something or they would be making more progress. That has nothing to do with anyone else and their Matches. The system is pretty clear. You win, you move up.
This is obviously not true. The rate at which you win matters. A lot of Paragons in Bronze and Silver were winning. Just not enough and at least partly because of who they are getting matched against. That is the main point of contention here.
There is a cap in terms of roster strength. Beyond a point the gains are very marginal while roster growth (both on strength and diversity) is much faster at lower levels. Two 8-10K prestige accounts can be vastly different in terms of champion composition. At 15K, the difference would be marginal.
The progress of the 15K account might not have anything to do with the matches of the 8-10K account. But it definitely is impacted by the other 15K accounts they are being matched against. A 9K account playing opponents in the 8-10K range is not same as a 15K account playing in the 14-16K range.
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
1- I will engage on a reasonable discussion where u actually state facts, but every time you are asked to state facts you just give abstract responses. You avoid every challenging question possible, go on a tangent and then accuse people to move a goal post... 2- As much as I disagree with some of @Stature points of view.. on the one you are quoting right now he is absolutely right .. U can't even compare the diversity between 2 Cav accounts at similar range and 2 Paragon ones... There is a defender diversity, there is a dup or undup diversity, there is a sig ability number... The level of competition is not even close to be climbing up or competing in the same ground. There are end game players being punished by maxing out signature ability on a Silver Surfer ...
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
That's not what I'm doing at all actually. I think we can end this aspect of the conversation. Whatever I say is being conjectured and twisted, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. There's a different perspective that's being ignored and regardless of the sense of pride and entitlement some people feel, I'm going to continue to point it out. The highest Players are not the only ones playing the game mode. They're not the most important, and no Player is. There has to be a solution that's accommodating for everyone, and it doesn't exist in "suck it up, it's a competition".
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
U r on point, and if I may add something... Lower progression is supposed to be a transitional phase... We are not telling CAVs to stay Cavs... Compete get the rewards you can.. BGs only been around a 6-7 months...(official not Beta)... People progressed without them.. making BG a sole source of progression is not how the game was designed
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
You can't have Paragons losing against other Paragons and blaming it on not being able to take out UCs and Cavs either.
That's not what I'm doing at all actually. I think we can end this aspect of the conversation. Whatever I say is being conjectured and twisted, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. There's a different perspective that's being ignored and regardless of the sense of pride and entitlement some people feel, I'm going to continue to point it out. The highest Players are not the only ones playing the game mode. They're not the most important, and no Player is. There has to be a solution that's accommodating for everyone, and it doesn't exist in "suck it up, it's a competition".
There is no system that is completely fair to all parties. Either you serve the majority, or you serve a minority. The perspective of low accounts is not being ignored, it's being presented as an acceptable group to deal with growing pains in the process of learning the game and learning how to build their rosters in order to succeed in content.
Lol. Is that what you call a competition that's so stacked they can't get out of Bronze? Sure. If they're going to be included in BGs, they have to be considered as well. Not just told to go kick rocks.
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
You can't have Paragons losing against other Paragons and blaming it on not being able to take out UCs and Cavs either.
The same way you can't have Cavs complaining about facing Paragons once they reached their peak in a competition.
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
You can't have Paragons losing against other Paragons and blaming it on not being able to take out UCs and Cavs either.
The same way you can't have Cavs complaining about facing Paragons once they reached their peak in a competition.
Which I never disagreed with. That peak doesn't involve stonewalling them at the start just to get easy Wins to get out of the VT.
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
You can't have Paragons losing against other Paragons and blaming it on not being able to take out UCs and Cavs either.
The same way you can't have Cavs complaining about facing Paragons once they reached their peak in a competition.
Which I never disagreed with. That peak doesn't involve stonewalling them at the start just to get easy Wins to get out of the VT.
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
You can't have Paragons losing against other Paragons and blaming it on not being able to take out UCs and Cavs either.
The same way you can't have Cavs complaining about facing Paragons once they reached their peak in a competition.
Which I never disagreed with. That peak doesn't involve stonewalling them at the start just to get easy Wins to get out of the VT.
Its a competition, there is no stonewalling...
Without something intervening, that's what you're doing.
@GroundedWisdom what are your specific and actionable suggestions for matchmaking in BGs?
Not what you’ve said before, or how someone interpreted what you’ve said. What specific changes do you think need to be made (or do any need to be made)? How would that work in practice in game?
Clean slate—assume none of us have read your previous comments (and you won’t be held to them).
N.B. I’m not trying to attack here, but I’d like to focus on things that can be done rather than argumentation and trying to get the last word. That’s what this thread (and forums in general) are supposed to do.
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
You can't have Paragons losing against other Paragons and blaming it on not being able to take out UCs and Cavs either.
The same way you can't have Cavs complaining about facing Paragons once they reached their peak in a competition.
Which I never disagreed with. That peak doesn't involve stonewalling them at the start just to get easy Wins to get out of the VT.
Its a competition, there is no stonewalling...
Without something intervening, that's what you're doing.
By intervening u mean catering?.. then its no longer a competition
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
You can't have Paragons losing against other Paragons and blaming it on not being able to take out UCs and Cavs either.
The same way you can't have Cavs complaining about facing Paragons once they reached their peak in a competition.
Which I never disagreed with. That peak doesn't involve stonewalling them at the start just to get easy Wins to get out of the VT.
Its a competition, there is no stonewalling...
Without something intervening, that's what you're doing.
By intervening u mean catering?.. then its no longer a competition
It is not catering by making sure Players actually have a chance to win starting out. The opposite is true. It's catering their Loss to the benefit of making it easier on Players who feel entitled to an easier time.
@GroundedWisdom what are your specific and actionable suggestions for matchmaking in BGs?
Not what you’ve said before, or how someone interpreted what you’ve said. What specific changes do you think need to be made (or do any need to be made)? How would that work in practice in game?
Clean slate—assume none of us have read your previous comments (and you won’t be held to them).
N.B. I’m not trying to attack here, but I’d like to focus on things that can be done rather than argumentation and trying to get the last word. That’s what this thread (and forums in general) are supposed to do.
Dr. Zola
I'll get back to this. I've had some ideas floating around, but I've also suggested a number of things over the last month or so. I'll compose some thoughts when I'm not working.
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
You can't have Paragons losing against other Paragons and blaming it on not being able to take out UCs and Cavs either.
If I have a roster that’s in the top-20% of eligible participants but I’m forced to compete in zero-sum competition only against the top-20% of rosters, something is broken. I can progress through parts of the victory track more easily with my Cav alt than my paragon main.
War guards against this by maintaining war rating across seasons and by having a score multiplier applied for season scoring. A t6 win may be comparable to (or only slightly better than) a t5 loss, for example.
At the end of the day, this design principle should be on the wall at Kabam - NOTHING should ever discourage rankups or roster development. If it does, it’s inherently flawed and needs to be reconsidered.
That's not what I'm doing at all actually. I think we can end this aspect of the conversation. Whatever I say is being conjectured and twisted, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. There's a different perspective that's being ignored and regardless of the sense of pride and entitlement some people feel, I'm going to continue to point it out. The highest Players are not the only ones playing the game mode. They're not the most important, and no Player is. There has to be a solution that's accommodating for everyone, and it doesn't exist in "suck it up, it's a competition".
There is no system that is completely fair to all parties. Either you serve the majority, or you serve a minority. The perspective of low accounts is not being ignored, it's being presented as an acceptable group to deal with growing pains in the process of learning the game and learning how to build their rosters in order to succeed in content.
Lol. Is that what you call a competition that's so stacked they can't get out of Bronze? Sure. If they're going to be included in BGs, they have to be considered as well. Not just told to go kick rocks.
That's not what I'm doing at all actually. I think we can end this aspect of the conversation. Whatever I say is being conjectured and twisted, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. There's a different perspective that's being ignored and regardless of the sense of pride and entitlement some people feel, I'm going to continue to point it out. The highest Players are not the only ones playing the game mode. They're not the most important, and no Player is. There has to be a solution that's accommodating for everyone, and it doesn't exist in "suck it up, it's a competition".
There is no system that is completely fair to all parties. Either you serve the majority, or you serve a minority. The perspective of low accounts is not being ignored, it's being presented as an acceptable group to deal with growing pains in the process of learning the game and learning how to build their rosters in order to succeed in content.
Lol. Is that what you call a competition that's so stacked they can't get out of Bronze? Sure. If they're going to be included in BGs, they have to be considered as well. Not just told to go kick rocks.
That's not what I'm doing at all actually. I think we can end this aspect of the conversation. Whatever I say is being conjectured and twisted, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. There's a different perspective that's being ignored and regardless of the sense of pride and entitlement some people feel, I'm going to continue to point it out. The highest Players are not the only ones playing the game mode. They're not the most important, and no Player is. There has to be a solution that's accommodating for everyone, and it doesn't exist in "suck it up, it's a competition".
There is no system that is completely fair to all parties. Either you serve the majority, or you serve a minority. The perspective of low accounts is not being ignored, it's being presented as an acceptable group to deal with growing pains in the process of learning the game and learning how to build their rosters in order to succeed in content.
Lol. Is that what you call a competition that's so stacked they can't get out of Bronze? Sure. If they're going to be included in BGs, they have to be considered as well. Not just told to go kick rocks.
That's not what I'm doing at all actually. I think we can end this aspect of the conversation. Whatever I say is being conjectured and twisted, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. There's a different perspective that's being ignored and regardless of the sense of pride and entitlement some people feel, I'm going to continue to point it out. The highest Players are not the only ones playing the game mode. They're not the most important, and no Player is. There has to be a solution that's accommodating for everyone, and it doesn't exist in "suck it up, it's a competition".
There is no system that is completely fair to all parties. Either you serve the majority, or you serve a minority. The perspective of low accounts is not being ignored, it's being presented as an acceptable group to deal with growing pains in the process of learning the game and learning how to build their rosters in order to succeed in content.
Lol. Is that what you call a competition that's so stacked they can't get out of Bronze? Sure. If they're going to be included in BGs, they have to be considered as well. Not just told to go kick rocks.
Can you explain how: 1. Being told to grow 2. Being told to practice 3. Being told you will face tougher opponents if you are at the absolute bottom 4. Being told you will face more quotable competition as you near the mean is being told to kick rocks? You've gone from demanding a voice for the voiceless to willingly ignoring everyone discussing them. What issue do you have WITH THE OPTIONS PRESENTED FOR LOWER ACCOUNTS OVER THE LAST 16 PAGES?
"You're a part of the competition, but you can't get anywhere in it. You should grow."
@DNA3000 Reposting this here (with some edits), because it might be lost in the thread given what followed
A proposed solution: The victory tokens granted for BG wins and losses are too chunky, leading to the current dissatisfaction. Instead of the current system of 2/3/4/5 tokens to move up a tier, it would be better if it was changed to a 2000-5000 token system - I'm using arbitrary numbers, they just need to be large enough. Trying to address two issues:
1. Remove silos in matchmaking, to the extent possible 2. Provide avenues for all players to progress
Currently, all matches are judged equally. It doesn't matter who you defeat or lose to, you gain or lose a token. The equivalent in the new system would be 1000 tokens, to keep the number of wins needed to progress same. But the number of tokens gained or lost can be adjusted to reflect the strength of the opponent.
For the purpose of examples I am using prestige, but this could be ELO or any other rating mechanism in between. The number of tokens won or lost is adjusted by the difference in prestige between the two players.
1. A 12k player vs 12k player - winner gets 1000 tokens, loser loses 1000 (or 500 etc. as per your suggestion if you want to make progress easier). 2. A 12K player plays a 10K player - If the 12K player wins they get 750 tokens, but if they lose they lose 1250 tokens. Reverse if the 10K player wins - they get 1250 token but only lose 750 tokens. Higher the difference, bigger the gap.
Now you have multiple paths to progress - if a 10K player can consistently beat 12-13K player, they have legitimately progressed higher at a faster pace than a 12K player beating a 12K player who is progressing at a faster pace than a 12K player beating a 10K player.
A 17K Paragon wants to climb up by only beating 8K accounts. It will take them 10x the matches to do so, with a jeopardy that if they are set back further if they lose to those accounts (or not, that's an optional call). The number of win loss tokens can be determined based on analysis of win rates, but essentially this allows for fractional wins and progress.
In this system it is easier to justify a fully random match making from the beginning within a tier, since the penalty of losing to stronger accounts (and the advantage from winning against easier ones) is attuned to reflect the nature of the challenge. A strong player with a strong account can progress quickly, since their path will be similar to what it is currently. A strong player but with a weaker roster can also progress fast, until they hit a ceiling. A strong account but average skills can progress at a good rate (higher title will place higher). The lower accounts can progress, probably at a slow rate but are not penalized extensively for the fact that most of the competition has a stronger account.
Expanding the number of tokens then allows for fractionalization and managing progress as required. Higher you go you can change the pace at which tokens are accrued and lost, necessitating more matches to be played to progress without pushing one back too much.
That's where I disagree. The difference in Accounts affects all Players wherever they're at.
What are you disagreeing with. You are for "fair" matches - your definition of fair being rosters at similar strength should play each other. In a system where winning pushes you forward and losing pushes you back. And then you insist that it is the losers fault for not winning and it's up to them to progress.
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
You can't have Paragons losing against other Paragons and blaming it on not being able to take out UCs and Cavs either.
The same way you can't have Cavs complaining about facing Paragons once they reached their peak in a competition.
Which I never disagreed with. That peak doesn't involve stonewalling them at the start just to get easy Wins to get out of the VT.
Its a competition, there is no stonewalling...
Without something intervening, that's what you're doing.
By intervening u mean catering?.. then its no longer a competition
It is not catering by making sure Players actually have a chance to win starting out. The opposite is true. It's catering their Loss to the benefit of making it easier on Players who feel entitled to an easier time.
If you are making sure someone has a chance its not a competition...its a fixed game
17 pages worth of input and feedback to improve a mode we all love….
But it’s clear nothing is being considered, since nobody in the top 12,000 ranks(latest confirmed update) has had their positions changed pre and post season5 - implying that everyone is clean and not modders. Lol
Comments
The gap between UC and most Cavs is not the same as TB to Paragon ...the gap is just 3 R4s in a deck of 30... Now there is a bigger gap between Paragon and Whale Paragons... It could be a deck with 15 r4s and 5 r4s... And that's all Paragons are matching in this Bogus matchmaking system...
So yeah I guess Cavs that get to Diamond have a lot more skills than Paragons that get stuck in Gold... So much skills the moment they get matched with one that takes away their tier climbing coin they take a screenshot and come to the forums to complain about unfair matchmaking
Like i said.. 7* and multiple r5s are comming.. its gonna get worse
It's a lack of something ...yeah a system that caters to them as well as lower progression that's what is lacking...
First off, you don't know that the only gap is 3 R3s. There is a myriad of differences in that and a Title doesn't dictate everything. It's just a general progress marker.
Secondly, "Prestige", modified Prestige, or whatever mechanic has been used, means the range between Accounts is roughly the same. Give or take within that range. So it's not as vast as you're implying, and it's the same difference for either side. That has variables, sure. Not to the extent that's being exaggerated.
Either way you look at it, people are not just more skilled because they have Titles. Generally speaking, they're probably more skilled. That doesn't mean a Paragon MUST advance regardless of their own individual results.
There is a cap in terms of roster strength. Beyond a point the gains are very marginal while roster growth (both on strength and diversity) is much faster at lower levels. Two 8-10K prestige accounts can be vastly different in terms of champion composition. At 15K, the difference would be marginal.
The progress of the 15K account might not have anything to do with the matches of the 8-10K account. But it definitely is impacted by the other 15K accounts they are being matched against. A 9K account playing opponents in the 8-10K range is not same as a 15K account playing in the 14-16K range.
My claims come from personal experience along with the experience my alliance mates had...
Yours comes from assumptions.
How dare u talk about "the lack of" on something you couldnt overcome yourself...
I think the current matching doesn’t work because a significant part of the rewards from playing are actually earned by progressing—somewhere around 40-50K BG tokens all way through the VT. Add in the very generous BG store and you have an asymmetrical bias towards smaller (not necessarily less experienced) accounts. For reference, I just played a full BG season and got a few thousand tokens as my alliance season prize.
As a result, I think the current formulation penalizes larger, deeper, more veteran accounts. And I think it does so all the way into the GC (ask your GC friends if they faced many small accounts in GC). Everyone gets ranked at season end, even those of us in Diamond on down. Fast-tracking some accounts to GC affects the rankings of everyone below them.
If that’s the policy decision made for this mode by the game team—namely, to fast track smaller accounts—then that’s their call. But it should be done transparently.
Things like ELO, staggered starts, seeding or some of the other suggestions bandied about a few days ago are worthy things to pick at and discuss. Is it better to give some players a “pass” based on previous seasons? Is it fair to force small accounts to encounter a few larger ones at the outset? Do we want to clear out larger accounts early so smaller accounts can make their way through Bronze and Silver earlier?
What works best? That’s the purpose of @DNA3000 ’s thread. I’m all for ideas and proposals for how things can be fairer for all accounts. I like the idea of ELO and staggered starts in combination, but I’d like to explore more about how that works in practice.
I also think—beyond BGs—the stores for the other game modes need updating to reduce pressure to play BGs (unlikely, I know, because it will probably lead to less participation in BGs). If we are honest about QoL and building a game where it’s impossible to do everything, then improve the options for Loyalty, Glory, etc. People shouldn’t feel forced to do BGs to keep up.
One thing I am certain of: I’m disappointed with how this thread has devolved into the same old conceptual tribalism. We can do better.
Dr. Zola
2- As much as I disagree with some of @Stature points of view.. on the one you are quoting right now he is absolutely right .. U can't even compare the diversity between 2 Cav accounts at similar range and 2 Paragon ones... There is a defender diversity, there is a dup or undup diversity, there is a sig ability number... The level of competition is not even close to be climbing up or competing in the same ground. There are end game players being punished by maxing out signature ability on a Silver Surfer ...
You cannot have Paragons only play Paragons and then blame the Paragons who are stuck that they should do better. If those Paragons progressed, the others wouldn't. At this point the system is taking some progress from higher level accounts and transferring them to some other accounts who are at a lower level. It is an arbitrary system which either benefits you or hinders you based on where you fall in some opaque range.
Your belief is that the redistribution of progress is important to have an engaging game mode for all players. Majority do not seem to agree. Mainly because it goes against most normally accepted definitions of fair competition.
There's a different perspective that's being ignored and regardless of the sense of pride and entitlement some people feel, I'm going to continue to point it out. The highest Players are not the only ones playing the game mode. They're not the most important, and no Player is. There has to be a solution that's accommodating for everyone, and it doesn't exist in "suck it up, it's a competition".
Lower progression is supposed to be a transitional phase... We are not telling CAVs to stay Cavs... Compete get the rewards you can.. BGs only been around a 6-7 months...(official not Beta)... People progressed without them.. making BG a sole source of progression is not how the game was designed
If they're going to be included in BGs, they have to be considered as well. Not just told to go kick rocks.
Not what you’ve said before, or how someone interpreted what you’ve said. What specific changes do you think need to be made (or do any need to be made)? How would that work in practice in game?
Clean slate—assume none of us have read your previous comments (and you won’t be held to them).
N.B. I’m not trying to attack here, but I’d like to focus on things that can be done rather than argumentation and trying to get the last word. That’s what this thread (and forums in general) are supposed to do.
Dr. Zola
War guards against this by maintaining war rating across seasons and by having a score multiplier applied for season scoring. A t6 win may be comparable to (or only slightly better than) a t5 loss, for example.
At the end of the day, this design principle should be on the wall at Kabam - NOTHING should ever discourage rankups or roster development. If it does, it’s inherently flawed and needs to be reconsidered.
A proposed solution:
The victory tokens granted for BG wins and losses are too chunky, leading to the current dissatisfaction. Instead of the current system of 2/3/4/5 tokens to move up a tier, it would be better if it was changed to a 2000-5000 token system - I'm using arbitrary numbers, they just need to be large enough. Trying to address two issues:
1. Remove silos in matchmaking, to the extent possible
2. Provide avenues for all players to progress
Currently, all matches are judged equally. It doesn't matter who you defeat or lose to, you gain or lose a token. The equivalent in the new system would be 1000 tokens, to keep the number of wins needed to progress same. But the number of tokens gained or lost can be adjusted to reflect the strength of the opponent.
For the purpose of examples I am using prestige, but this could be ELO or any other rating mechanism in between. The number of tokens won or lost is adjusted by the difference in prestige between the two players.
1. A 12k player vs 12k player - winner gets 1000 tokens, loser loses 1000 (or 500 etc. as per your suggestion if you want to make progress easier).
2. A 12K player plays a 10K player - If the 12K player wins they get 750 tokens, but if they lose they lose 1250 tokens. Reverse if the 10K player wins - they get 1250 token but only lose 750 tokens. Higher the difference, bigger the gap.
Now you have multiple paths to progress - if a 10K player can consistently beat 12-13K player, they have legitimately progressed higher at a faster pace than a 12K player beating a 12K player who is progressing at a faster pace than a 12K player beating a 10K player.
A 17K Paragon wants to climb up by only beating 8K accounts. It will take them 10x the matches to do so, with a jeopardy that if they are set back further if they lose to those accounts (or not, that's an optional call). The number of win loss tokens can be determined based on analysis of win rates, but essentially this allows for fractional wins and progress.
In this system it is easier to justify a fully random match making from the beginning within a tier, since the penalty of losing to stronger accounts (and the advantage from winning against easier ones) is attuned to reflect the nature of the challenge. A strong player with a strong account can progress quickly, since their path will be similar to what it is currently. A strong player but with a weaker roster can also progress fast, until they hit a ceiling. A strong account but average skills can progress at a good rate (higher title will place higher). The lower accounts can progress, probably at a slow rate but are not penalized extensively for the fact that most of the competition has a stronger account.
Expanding the number of tokens then allows for fractionalization and managing progress as required. Higher you go you can change the pace at which tokens are accrued and lost, necessitating more matches to be played to progress without pushing one back too much.
But it’s clear nothing is being considered, since nobody in the top 12,000 ranks(latest confirmed update) has had their positions changed pre and post season5 - implying that everyone is clean and not modders. Lol
But they’ve banned a “1000 modders”