Fix Battlegrounds in three easy steps (that we can argue about until the end of time)

GroundedWisdom

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.

You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.

That's because we have a number of opinions being expressed here, and I'm not responding to all of them.
Someone suggested doing away with the Rewards in the VT. That's what I was responding to in terms of keeping Players from Rewards.

The suggestion, if I recall correctly, was to shift rewards from VT paths to objectives. So accusing that suggestion of "keeping rewards from players" is a characterization, and one that should be supported by some direct evidence or deduction, as all characterizations should be.

What makes a comment a characterization is when it doesn't address the details, it attempts to apply a judgment. If someone suggests moving rewards from here to there that only takes reward away from players if the opportunities are not reasonably similar. If there's no obvious attempt to do so, and none can be pointed out, that would be an unfair characterization. We should try to avoid those.

If someone were to suggest eliminating VT rewards and adding them to GC rewards, it would be fair to say that is removing rewards from VT caliber players and adding them to GC caliber players. But that's now a conclusion not a characterization, because it is both obvious and easy to demonstrate for completeness that this removes rewards from a very large class of players (players who remain in VT) who will have no access to them. And the counter-argument that any VT player could get them if they just get into GC is itself counterable by the clear observation that the game mode is not designed to allow everyone into GC. The fair argument would be, for anyone suggesting moving rewards from VT to GC on the grounds that everyone *can* get to GC, is would they support attempts by Kabam to make it easier for everyone to get into GC. If the answer is no, then their argument falls apart.

That's a reasonable way to make the assertion that someone is trying to "take rewards away from players" in this made up example of mine. It is fair, it is reasonable, it targets the explicit details of the suggestion, and it is supported by clear logical thinking. This is what I think most people would like to see when challenging a suggestion. If it is flawed, we should uncover and examine those flaws. But characterizations alone do not further the conversation in that direction.

Perhaps a bit direct and assumptive on my part, were it not supported by strong views on lower Players earning Rewards by certain individuals althroughout the subject. I'll give you that I'm somewhat less composed towards it, for sure.
There is a fine line between concern for the overall system and wanting to see those who have benefited cauterized and penalized somehow. People have what they were asking for being implemented. Which is great. I'm still going to look out for the other Players in this because no one participates in a system very long if they're marginalized. Call me sensitive, but it's a concern for me. A little kick in the bum is motivation. Ignore them completely, and the numbers will dwindle. I feel confident in saying that. If it sways too much to one side, we will see some months from now.
No one likes to be told their gaming experience is inconsequential. That includes with actions as well as words.

Yeah, the trouble now is that you're talking about someone who isn't there. Nobody wants to keep rewards from VT folks, so the idea that there is an agenda to do so is incorrect. Ive been along for the whole thread amd saw no point where someone suggested keeping or reducing the VT rewards. The closest I recall is people being upset that low accounts cruised to gc. That's it. At the very least, I've not fought for that, so to apply it to anything I put out or discuss would be wrong.

The comment was made.

"Putting all the VT rewards into objectives, and taking them out of the tiers would be a great start."

Ironman3000

Now that Kabam has announced that they want to start better players higher up, I wonder if some who have been opposed to that will suddenly change their minds.

DrZola

If I were to answer for @Ironman3000 —I really don’t think so. That doesn’t address the problems with frustration and fruitless gameplay that cut across all titles.

I wouldn’t shift all of the prizes into objectives either but I’d be interested to hear how he thinks that would work.

If I were to suggest anything title-related, it would be to open all the current Win 1/2/3 objectives immediately at Bronze to Paragons and probably TB as well. It’s a nominal number of tokens, but it would at least give some benefit to higher accounts who face the stiffest competition out of the gate.

But I will let @Ironman3000 discuss

Dr. Zola

Midknight007

If the 3 steps are 2 back for each forward… we might be getting somewhere. Just backwards.

Ironman3000

DrZola said:

If I were to answer for @Ironman3000 —I really don’t think so. That doesn’t address the problems with frustration and fruitless gameplay that cut across all titles.

I wouldn’t shift all of the prizes into objectives either but I’d be interested to hear how he thinks that would work.

If I were to suggest anything title-related, it would be to open all the current Win 1/2/3 objectives immediately at Bronze to Paragons and probably TB as well. It’s a nominal number of tokens, but it would at least give some benefit to higher accounts who face the stiffest competition out of the gate.

But I will let @Ironman3000 discuss

Dr. Zola

As you actually want to have a discussion, I'll explain further.

I do not consider the VT a competition (no real competition silos players into tiers to give weaker players a 'fair' match). The VT is just a way to make people earn their way into the GC. It's no more than a ladder to climb to qualify for the competition.

Having 15 tiers of objectives each season with the need to win X number of fights to earn the VT rewards would allow players to start anywhere and still have to earn the rewards by playing the game. No free rewards in the mail just because you had one good season. It would also incentivize people to actually play because there wouldn't be a true roadblock for getting stuck. You could still earn rewards to improve your roster (assuming a system that rewards those who improve their roster) and have an easier time getting to the GC.

This would actually allow low players to earn more rewards if they chose to keep playing because getting roadblocked wouldn't stall their earning potential.

GroundedWisdom

Ironman3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ironman3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.

You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.

That's because we have a number of opinions being expressed here, and I'm not responding to all of them.
Someone suggested doing away with the Rewards in the VT. That's what I was responding to in terms of keeping Players from Rewards.

The suggestion, if I recall correctly, was to shift rewards from VT paths to objectives. So accusing that suggestion of "keeping rewards from players" is a characterization, and one that should be supported by some direct evidence or deduction, as all characterizations should be.

What makes a comment a characterization is when it doesn't address the details, it attempts to apply a judgment. If someone suggests moving rewards from here to there that only takes reward away from players if the opportunities are not reasonably similar. If there's no obvious attempt to do so, and none can be pointed out, that would be an unfair characterization. We should try to avoid those.

If someone were to suggest eliminating VT rewards and adding them to GC rewards, it would be fair to say that is removing rewards from VT caliber players and adding them to GC caliber players. But that's now a conclusion not a characterization, because it is both obvious and easy to demonstrate for completeness that this removes rewards from a very large class of players (players who remain in VT) who will have no access to them. And the counter-argument that any VT player could get them if they just get into GC is itself counterable by the clear observation that the game mode is not designed to allow everyone into GC. The fair argument would be, for anyone suggesting moving rewards from VT to GC on the grounds that everyone *can* get to GC, is would they support attempts by Kabam to make it easier for everyone to get into GC. If the answer is no, then their argument falls apart.

That's a reasonable way to make the assertion that someone is trying to "take rewards away from players" in this made up example of mine. It is fair, it is reasonable, it targets the explicit details of the suggestion, and it is supported by clear logical thinking. This is what I think most people would like to see when challenging a suggestion. If it is flawed, we should uncover and examine those flaws. But characterizations alone do not further the conversation in that direction.

Perhaps a bit direct and assumptive on my part, were it not supported by strong views on lower Players earning Rewards by certain individuals althroughout the subject. I'll give you that I'm somewhat less composed towards it, for sure.
There is a fine line between concern for the overall system and wanting to see those who have benefited cauterized and penalized somehow. People have what they were asking for being implemented. Which is great. I'm still going to look out for the other Players in this because no one participates in a system very long if they're marginalized. Call me sensitive, but it's a concern for me. A little kick in the bum is motivation. Ignore them completely, and the numbers will dwindle. I feel confident in saying that. If it sways too much to one side, we will see some months from now.
No one likes to be told their gaming experience is inconsequential. That includes with actions as well as words.

Yeah, the trouble now is that you're talking about someone who isn't there. Nobody wants to keep rewards from VT folks, so the idea that there is an agenda to do so is incorrect. Ive been along for the whole thread amd saw no point where someone suggested keeping or reducing the VT rewards. The closest I recall is people being upset that low accounts cruised to gc. That's it. At the very least, I've not fought for that, so to apply it to anything I put out or discuss would be wrong.

The comment was made.

"Putting all the VT rewards into objectives, and taking them out of the tiers would be a great start."

Please explain how my statement is trying to keep people from earning rewards. I would love to hear how I'm trying to keep people from earning rewards.

**Hint, you should read the rest of my post before respinding.

I read the Post. How would you start better Players higher and accommodate with the Objectives if they weren't tied into Titles somehow. I read the entire comment. I'm quite perceptive.

Better players are the ones who finished the previous season higher then others (did you even read Kabam's post).

Why are you talking about titles? Did I say that better titles should start higher? You say you're "quite perceptive" but don't seem to perceive very basic statements and instead try to shoehorn in your own incorrect ideas into each argument. It feels like you're arguing with a person you've made up in your head and not me.

You tied in your suggestion of removing VT Rewards and adding Objectives as a way of rewarding "better Players".

Ironman3000

GroundedWisdom said:

Ironman3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ironman3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.

You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.

That's because we have a number of opinions being expressed here, and I'm not responding to all of them.
Someone suggested doing away with the Rewards in the VT. That's what I was responding to in terms of keeping Players from Rewards.

The suggestion, if I recall correctly, was to shift rewards from VT paths to objectives. So accusing that suggestion of "keeping rewards from players" is a characterization, and one that should be supported by some direct evidence or deduction, as all characterizations should be.

What makes a comment a characterization is when it doesn't address the details, it attempts to apply a judgment. If someone suggests moving rewards from here to there that only takes reward away from players if the opportunities are not reasonably similar. If there's no obvious attempt to do so, and none can be pointed out, that would be an unfair characterization. We should try to avoid those.

If someone were to suggest eliminating VT rewards and adding them to GC rewards, it would be fair to say that is removing rewards from VT caliber players and adding them to GC caliber players. But that's now a conclusion not a characterization, because it is both obvious and easy to demonstrate for completeness that this removes rewards from a very large class of players (players who remain in VT) who will have no access to them. And the counter-argument that any VT player could get them if they just get into GC is itself counterable by the clear observation that the game mode is not designed to allow everyone into GC. The fair argument would be, for anyone suggesting moving rewards from VT to GC on the grounds that everyone *can* get to GC, is would they support attempts by Kabam to make it easier for everyone to get into GC. If the answer is no, then their argument falls apart.

That's a reasonable way to make the assertion that someone is trying to "take rewards away from players" in this made up example of mine. It is fair, it is reasonable, it targets the explicit details of the suggestion, and it is supported by clear logical thinking. This is what I think most people would like to see when challenging a suggestion. If it is flawed, we should uncover and examine those flaws. But characterizations alone do not further the conversation in that direction.

Perhaps a bit direct and assumptive on my part, were it not supported by strong views on lower Players earning Rewards by certain individuals althroughout the subject. I'll give you that I'm somewhat less composed towards it, for sure.
There is a fine line between concern for the overall system and wanting to see those who have benefited cauterized and penalized somehow. People have what they were asking for being implemented. Which is great. I'm still going to look out for the other Players in this because no one participates in a system very long if they're marginalized. Call me sensitive, but it's a concern for me. A little kick in the bum is motivation. Ignore them completely, and the numbers will dwindle. I feel confident in saying that. If it sways too much to one side, we will see some months from now.
No one likes to be told their gaming experience is inconsequential. That includes with actions as well as words.

Yeah, the trouble now is that you're talking about someone who isn't there. Nobody wants to keep rewards from VT folks, so the idea that there is an agenda to do so is incorrect. Ive been along for the whole thread amd saw no point where someone suggested keeping or reducing the VT rewards. The closest I recall is people being upset that low accounts cruised to gc. That's it. At the very least, I've not fought for that, so to apply it to anything I put out or discuss would be wrong.

The comment was made.

"Putting all the VT rewards into objectives, and taking them out of the tiers would be a great start."

Please explain how my statement is trying to keep people from earning rewards. I would love to hear how I'm trying to keep people from earning rewards.

**Hint, you should read the rest of my post before respinding.

I read the Post. How would you start better Players higher and accommodate with the Objectives if they weren't tied into Titles somehow. I read the entire comment. I'm quite perceptive.

Better players are the ones who finished the previous season higher then others (did you even read Kabam's post).

Why are you talking about titles? Did I say that better titles should start higher? You say you're "quite perceptive" but don't seem to perceive very basic statements and instead try to shoehorn in your own incorrect ideas into each argument. It feels like you're arguing with a person you've made up in your head and not me.

You tied in your suggestion of removing VT Rewards and adding Objectives as a way of rewarding "better Players".

Better players, not higher titles.

What are you even arguing at this point GW because it certainly isn't anything in my posts?

GroundedWisdom

Ironman3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ironman3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Ironman3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.

You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.

That's because we have a number of opinions being expressed here, and I'm not responding to all of them.
Someone suggested doing away with the Rewards in the VT. That's what I was responding to in terms of keeping Players from Rewards.

The suggestion, if I recall correctly, was to shift rewards from VT paths to objectives. So accusing that suggestion of "keeping rewards from players" is a characterization, and one that should be supported by some direct evidence or deduction, as all characterizations should be.

What makes a comment a characterization is when it doesn't address the details, it attempts to apply a judgment. If someone suggests moving rewards from here to there that only takes reward away from players if the opportunities are not reasonably similar. If there's no obvious attempt to do so, and none can be pointed out, that would be an unfair characterization. We should try to avoid those.

If someone were to suggest eliminating VT rewards and adding them to GC rewards, it would be fair to say that is removing rewards from VT caliber players and adding them to GC caliber players. But that's now a conclusion not a characterization, because it is both obvious and easy to demonstrate for completeness that this removes rewards from a very large class of players (players who remain in VT) who will have no access to them. And the counter-argument that any VT player could get them if they just get into GC is itself counterable by the clear observation that the game mode is not designed to allow everyone into GC. The fair argument would be, for anyone suggesting moving rewards from VT to GC on the grounds that everyone *can* get to GC, is would they support attempts by Kabam to make it easier for everyone to get into GC. If the answer is no, then their argument falls apart.

That's a reasonable way to make the assertion that someone is trying to "take rewards away from players" in this made up example of mine. It is fair, it is reasonable, it targets the explicit details of the suggestion, and it is supported by clear logical thinking. This is what I think most people would like to see when challenging a suggestion. If it is flawed, we should uncover and examine those flaws. But characterizations alone do not further the conversation in that direction.

Perhaps a bit direct and assumptive on my part, were it not supported by strong views on lower Players earning Rewards by certain individuals althroughout the subject. I'll give you that I'm somewhat less composed towards it, for sure.
There is a fine line between concern for the overall system and wanting to see those who have benefited cauterized and penalized somehow. People have what they were asking for being implemented. Which is great. I'm still going to look out for the other Players in this because no one participates in a system very long if they're marginalized. Call me sensitive, but it's a concern for me. A little kick in the bum is motivation. Ignore them completely, and the numbers will dwindle. I feel confident in saying that. If it sways too much to one side, we will see some months from now.
No one likes to be told their gaming experience is inconsequential. That includes with actions as well as words.

Yeah, the trouble now is that you're talking about someone who isn't there. Nobody wants to keep rewards from VT folks, so the idea that there is an agenda to do so is incorrect. Ive been along for the whole thread amd saw no point where someone suggested keeping or reducing the VT rewards. The closest I recall is people being upset that low accounts cruised to gc. That's it. At the very least, I've not fought for that, so to apply it to anything I put out or discuss would be wrong.

The comment was made.

"Putting all the VT rewards into objectives, and taking them out of the tiers would be a great start."

Please explain how my statement is trying to keep people from earning rewards. I would love to hear how I'm trying to keep people from earning rewards.

**Hint, you should read the rest of my post before respinding.

I read the Post. How would you start better Players higher and accommodate with the Objectives if they weren't tied into Titles somehow. I read the entire comment. I'm quite perceptive.

Better players are the ones who finished the previous season higher then others (did you even read Kabam's post).

Why are you talking about titles? Did I say that better titles should start higher? You say you're "quite perceptive" but don't seem to perceive very basic statements and instead try to shoehorn in your own incorrect ideas into each argument. It feels like you're arguing with a person you've made up in your head and not me.

You tied in your suggestion of removing VT Rewards and adding Objectives as a way of rewarding "better Players".

Better players, not higher titles.

What are you even arguing at this point GW because it certainly isn't anything in my posts?

Alright then. What do you consider better Players with your suggestion?

Ironman3000

Fredhorst23 said:

"Putting all the VT rewards into objectives, and taking them out of the tiers would be a great start. You'd have to increase the win totals as you couldn't keep the streak barrier but IMO it would make things much more enjoyable. You could get stuck and still be able to earn rewards, which would increase incentive to keep playing. It would also allow Kabam to start better players higher on the ladder and not have to create "new tech" or give people free rewards."
@Ironman3000 I went ahead and pulled up your original post about it. Gw is referencing the part where you referenced the system that kabam is working on already.

Yeah, he should be arguing w/ Kabam, not me.

GroundedWisdom

I'm not arguing at all. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion because it seems to serve one Player level and inhibit another.
You're going to remove VT Rewards, put them in Objectives, and make it easier for Players who made it higher the previous Season to get it. Sure.
What Kabam never suggested was removing them completely from the VT. The idea is they have access to the Rewards they didn't get when they started higher. (Something I still don't agree with, but that ship has sailed and not my point here.)
How is removing the VT Rewards for EVERYONE better for everyone?

Coppin

GroundedWisdom said:

I'm not arguing at all. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion because it seems to serve one Player level and inhibit another.
You're going to remove VT Rewards, put them in Objectives, and make it easier for Players who made it higher the previous Season to get it. Sure.
What Kabam never suggested was removing them completely from the VT. The idea is they have access to the Rewards they didn't get when they started higher. (Something I still don't agree with, but that ship has sailed and not my point here.)
How is removing the VT Rewards for EVERYONE better for everyone?

I wrote a floating post; but about serving 1 and inhibiting others...THATS PART OF A COMPETITION, u can try... Doesn't mean you will get it
Also from the BG Dev Diary, they pretty much wrote to UC and Cav... If they want to compete tough luck in the future... They are going to have to progress and strengthen their rosters.

Coppin

Fredhorst23 said:

"Putting all the VT rewards into objectives, and taking them out of the tiers would be a great start. You'd have to increase the win totals as you couldn't keep the streak barrier but IMO it would make things much more enjoyable. You could get stuck and still be able to earn rewards, which would increase incentive to keep playing. It would also allow Kabam to start better players higher on the ladder and not have to create "new tech" or give people free rewards."
@Ironman3000 I went ahead and pulled up your original post about it. Gw is referencing the part where you referenced the system that kabam is working on already.

I proposed the same thing long ago . Maybe in a different tone.. I said to leave the coin loss out.. but leave all the rewards as a chain of objectives such as:
Objective 1: Win 2 in a row
Objective 2: Win 2 in a row
Objective 3: Win 3 in a row...
It was ignored or criticized cause.. U wouldnt get any rewards for climbing 🤣

GroundedWisdom

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I'm not arguing at all. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion because it seems to serve one Player level and inhibit another.
You're going to remove VT Rewards, put them in Objectives, and make it easier for Players who made it higher the previous Season to get it. Sure.
What Kabam never suggested was removing them completely from the VT. The idea is they have access to the Rewards they didn't get when they started higher. (Something I still don't agree with, but that ship has sailed and not my point here.)
How is removing the VT Rewards for EVERYONE better for everyone?

Careful, nobody said make it easier for players who made it higher to get it. Moving the rewards to objectives (like "win a fight" a bunch of times) would likely make them more accessible because they wouldn't require any streaks. It'd also possibly enhance participation by the same reasoning.

Removing the Rewards from the VT, whether in Objectives or not, is going to encourage participation. All that's going to do is give Players more Rewards who are stuck in the VT while the new system is being implemented.

GroundedWisdom

Also, what's the motivation for working towards going up in Tiers in the VT, if there are no Rewards for mounting?

GroundedWisdom

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Also, what's the motivation for working towards going up in Tiers in the VT, if there are no Rewards for mounting?

Personally, I'd still have promotion rewards in addition to fight solo objectives rewards. I don't know the economy flow enough to say if that needs to be a redistribution or addition. Also getting to gc would still be the motivation to progress.

I suppose that would be a different suggestion entirely. The one I was addressing was removing them completely.

DrZola

GroundedWisdom said:

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I'm not arguing at all. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion because it seems to serve one Player level and inhibit another.
You're going to remove VT Rewards, put them in Objectives, and make it easier for Players who made it higher the previous Season to get it. Sure.
What Kabam never suggested was removing them completely from the VT. The idea is they have access to the Rewards they didn't get when they started higher. (Something I still don't agree with, but that ship has sailed and not my point here.)
How is removing the VT Rewards for EVERYONE better for everyone?

Careful, nobody said make it easier for players who made it higher to get it. Moving the rewards to objectives (like "win a fight" a bunch of times) would likely make them more accessible because they wouldn't require any streaks. It'd also possibly enhance participation by the same reasoning.

Removing the Rewards from the VT, whether in Objectives or not, is going to encourage participation. All that's going to do is give Players more Rewards who are stuck in the VT while the new system is being implemented.

1. You’re absolutely right—putting rewards in Objectives “is going to encourage participation.” And that’s a good thing. One example of how that’s good is that it might prevent (or at least minimize) the occurrence of things like what’s mentioned in this thread:

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/330851/battlegrounds-unfair-matchmaking-is-out-of-hand#latest

If @DNA3000 is correct, one of the reasons (if not the reason) for this mismatch is that players at the OP’s level weren’t available. Encouraging participation makes more players available—potentially making it more likely the OP in that thread matches with a “fair” opponent.

Other examples are what @Fredhorst23 noted previously—namely, that having some more breadcrumbs along the way might be enough to make him participate more.

2. While I don’t necessarily agree with moving all VT prizes to objectives, I’m surprised to see you concerned about whether players would want to climb the VT at all. You’re on record in several places saying variations of “GC is where the real competition is.” If so, that should be sufficient for players to play to win.

But…this underscores the point I’ve been trying to make. The balance between encouraging participation and requiring victory is currently skewed too far one way. Rebalancing (by reallocating rewards) can help to fix that and alleviate a host of issues.

Just trying to address some of your concerns.

Dr. Zola

GroundedWisdom

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I'm not arguing at all. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion because it seems to serve one Player level and inhibit another.
You're going to remove VT Rewards, put them in Objectives, and make it easier for Players who made it higher the previous Season to get it. Sure.
What Kabam never suggested was removing them completely from the VT. The idea is they have access to the Rewards they didn't get when they started higher. (Something I still don't agree with, but that ship has sailed and not my point here.)
How is removing the VT Rewards for EVERYONE better for everyone?

Careful, nobody said make it easier for players who made it higher to get it. Moving the rewards to objectives (like "win a fight" a bunch of times) would likely make them more accessible because they wouldn't require any streaks. It'd also possibly enhance participation by the same reasoning.

Removing the Rewards from the VT, whether in Objectives or not, is going to encourage participation. All that's going to do is give Players more Rewards who are stuck in the VT while the new system is being implemented.

1. You’re absolutely right—putting rewards in Objectives “is going to encourage participation.” And that’s a good thing. One example of how that’s good is that it might prevent (or at least minimize) the occurrence of things like what’s mentioned in this thread:

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/330851/battlegrounds-unfair-matchmaking-is-out-of-hand#latest

If @DNA3000 is correct, one of the reasons (if not the reason for this mismatch is that players at the OP’s level weren’t available. Encouraging participation makes more players available—potentially making it more likely the OP in that thread matches with a “fair” opponent.

Other examples are what @Fredhorst23 noted previously—namely, that having some more breadcrumbs along the way might be enough to make him participate more.

2. While I don’t necessarily agree with moving all VT prizes to objectives, I’m surprised to see you concerned about whether players would want to climb the VT at all. You’re on record in several places saying variations of “GC is where the real competition is.” If so, that should be sufficient for players to play to win.

But…this underscores the point I’ve been trying to make. The balance between encouraging participation and requiring victory is currently skewed too far one way. Rebalancing (by reallocating rewards) can help to fix that and alleviate a host of issues.

Just trying to address some of your concerns.

Dr. Zola

I disagree. It's still a competition. You want to encourage participation. You don't want to make it more advantageous to participate than to win.

DrZola

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I'm not arguing at all. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion because it seems to serve one Player level and inhibit another.
You're going to remove VT Rewards, put them in Objectives, and make it easier for Players who made it higher the previous Season to get it. Sure.
What Kabam never suggested was removing them completely from the VT. The idea is they have access to the Rewards they didn't get when they started higher. (Something I still don't agree with, but that ship has sailed and not my point here.)
How is removing the VT Rewards for EVERYONE better for everyone?

Careful, nobody said make it easier for players who made it higher to get it. Moving the rewards to objectives (like "win a fight" a bunch of times) would likely make them more accessible because they wouldn't require any streaks. It'd also possibly enhance participation by the same reasoning.

Removing the Rewards from the VT, whether in Objectives or not, is going to encourage participation. All that's going to do is give Players more Rewards who are stuck in the VT while the new system is being implemented.

1. You’re absolutely right—putting rewards in Objectives “is going to encourage participation.” And that’s a good thing. One example of how that’s good is that it might prevent (or at least minimize) the occurrence of things like what’s mentioned in this thread:

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/330851/battlegrounds-unfair-matchmaking-is-out-of-hand#latest

If @DNA3000 is correct, one of the reasons (if not the reason for this mismatch is that players at the OP’s level weren’t available. Encouraging participation makes more players available—potentially making it more likely the OP in that thread matches with a “fair” opponent.

Other examples are what @Fredhorst23 noted previously—namely, that having some more breadcrumbs along the way might be enough to make him participate more.

2. While I don’t necessarily agree with moving all VT prizes to objectives, I’m surprised to see you concerned about whether players would want to climb the VT at all. You’re on record in several places saying variations of “GC is where the real competition is.” If so, that should be sufficient for players to play to win.

But…this underscores the point I’ve been trying to make. The balance between encouraging participation and requiring victory is currently skewed too far one way. Rebalancing (by reallocating rewards) can help to fix that and alleviate a host of issues.

Just trying to address some of your concerns.

Dr. Zola

I disagree. It's still a competition. You want to encourage participation. You don't want to make it more advantageous to participate than to win.

Well, the participation I’m trying to encourage right now is discussion and analysis, not foot-stomping, pouting and arm-crossing.

Quite a few forums members like me and @DNA3000 and others have asked you to engage honestly with the various arguments as opposed to casting accusations and strawmanning anyone else’s points. Do you think you could try that? People put time into posts; rapid-fire dismissals that demonstrate little effort or time spent to understand or read those posts suggests either willful obtuseness or a closed mind. That’s fine—but if you have nothing to offer other than “I disagree” then just use the reaction button under the comment and let those of us who want to discuss possible solutions continue.

Dr. Zola

GroundedWisdom

I'm not discussing the way I respond in conversations anymore. This isn't an analysis of my conversation skills. You make your points, I'll make my own.

GroundedWisdom

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I'm not arguing at all. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion because it seems to serve one Player level and inhibit another.
You're going to remove VT Rewards, put them in Objectives, and make it easier for Players who made it higher the previous Season to get it. Sure.
What Kabam never suggested was removing them completely from the VT. The idea is they have access to the Rewards they didn't get when they started higher. (Something I still don't agree with, but that ship has sailed and not my point here.)
How is removing the VT Rewards for EVERYONE better for everyone?

Careful, nobody said make it easier for players who made it higher to get it. Moving the rewards to objectives (like "win a fight" a bunch of times) would likely make them more accessible because they wouldn't require any streaks. It'd also possibly enhance participation by the same reasoning.

Removing the Rewards from the VT, whether in Objectives or not, is going to encourage participation. All that's going to do is give Players more Rewards who are stuck in the VT while the new system is being implemented.

1. You’re absolutely right—putting rewards in Objectives “is going to encourage participation.” And that’s a good thing. One example of how that’s good is that it might prevent (or at least minimize) the occurrence of things like what’s mentioned in this thread:

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/330851/battlegrounds-unfair-matchmaking-is-out-of-hand#latest

If @DNA3000 is correct, one of the reasons (if not the reason for this mismatch is that players at the OP’s level weren’t available. Encouraging participation makes more players available—potentially making it more likely the OP in that thread matches with a “fair” opponent.

Other examples are what @Fredhorst23 noted previously—namely, that having some more breadcrumbs along the way might be enough to make him participate more.

2. While I don’t necessarily agree with moving all VT prizes to objectives, I’m surprised to see you concerned about whether players would want to climb the VT at all. You’re on record in several places saying variations of “GC is where the real competition is.” If so, that should be sufficient for players to play to win.

But…this underscores the point I’ve been trying to make. The balance between encouraging participation and requiring victory is currently skewed too far one way. Rebalancing (by reallocating rewards) can help to fix that and alleviate a host of issues.

Just trying to address some of your concerns.

Dr. Zola

I disagree. It's still a competition. You want to encourage participation. You don't want to make it more advantageous to participate than to win.

That seems quite the jump from "a few extra tokens" to "rewards on par with several promotions and ranking in gc." The rewards im suggesting would be the equivalent of gathering gmc shards in arena milestones, compared to getting a featured champ for ranking. I think I was pretty clear about keeping gc the gold standard for prizes, while simply incentivizing playing a lot of matches. Remember that participation is the true priority if kabam wants the mode to persist.

Again, I was speaking to the suggestion about removing them. As for your suggestion, I don't have much of an objection to a small amount to incentivize, as long as it isn't more advantageous to play than to win, as per my previous comment.

Pikolu

I'd quite enjoy seeing like half of the rewards of VT moved to just objectives. With the way BGs has been going the past few seasons, we will likely see a trend down in participation. A lower trend in participation means less people are going to even be able to make it to GC which means less rewards are going to be given out.

8 months before MROC was closed, there was almost no participation in any gamemodes which meant you were matched with and against AI on your team. While that is easy in a Moba, how would that look in MCOC? Kabam would have to have the opposing AI basically cheat in its fight to be competitive at all or just have the AI place defenders you face and have a predetermined amount of points the AI will get for its "match". This could make VT either too easy, or too hard to even get out of if you're just facing this AI.

Without participation, VT can't exist. So having objectives as an incentive to play battlegrounds will help keep the gamemode alive. It would be a real shame if kabam had to resort to just having GC with the same setup as the betas because participation was at an all time low.

DrZola

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

I'm not arguing at all. I'm disagreeing with the suggestion because it seems to serve one Player level and inhibit another.
You're going to remove VT Rewards, put them in Objectives, and make it easier for Players who made it higher the previous Season to get it. Sure.
What Kabam never suggested was removing them completely from the VT. The idea is they have access to the Rewards they didn't get when they started higher. (Something I still don't agree with, but that ship has sailed and not my point here.)
How is removing the VT Rewards for EVERYONE better for everyone?

Careful, nobody said make it easier for players who made it higher to get it. Moving the rewards to objectives (like "win a fight" a bunch of times) would likely make them more accessible because they wouldn't require any streaks. It'd also possibly enhance participation by the same reasoning.

Removing the Rewards from the VT, whether in Objectives or not, is going to encourage participation. All that's going to do is give Players more Rewards who are stuck in the VT while the new system is being implemented.

1. You’re absolutely right—putting rewards in Objectives “is going to encourage participation.” And that’s a good thing. One example of how that’s good is that it might prevent (or at least minimize) the occurrence of things like what’s mentioned in this thread:

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/330851/battlegrounds-unfair-matchmaking-is-out-of-hand#latest

If @DNA3000 is correct, one of the reasons (if not the reason for this mismatch is that players at the OP’s level weren’t available. Encouraging participation makes more players available—potentially making it more likely the OP in that thread matches with a “fair” opponent.

Other examples are what @Fredhorst23 noted previously—namely, that having some more breadcrumbs along the way might be enough to make him participate more.

2. While I don’t necessarily agree with moving all VT prizes to objectives, I’m surprised to see you concerned about whether players would want to climb the VT at all. You’re on record in several places saying variations of “GC is where the real competition is.” If so, that should be sufficient for players to play to win.

But…this underscores the point I’ve been trying to make. The balance between encouraging participation and requiring victory is currently skewed too far one way. Rebalancing (by reallocating rewards) can help to fix that and alleviate a host of issues.

Just trying to address some of your concerns.

Dr. Zola

I disagree. It's still a competition. You want to encourage participation. You don't want to make it more advantageous to participate than to win.

That seems quite the jump from "a few extra tokens" to "rewards on par with several promotions and ranking in gc." The rewards im suggesting would be the equivalent of gathering gmc shards in arena milestones, compared to getting a featured champ for ranking. I think I was pretty clear about keeping gc the gold standard for prizes, while simply incentivizing playing a lot of matches. Remember that participation is the true priority if kabam wants the mode to persist.

Right. I don’t think a ton of rewards are necessary to tilt the balance—hence, the term “breadcrumbs” I used above.

But I do think the balance needs to be tilted. Resisting that proposition suggests a desire to keep different classes of players out of rewards—namely, advanced players who get stuck competing against each other at low tiers and struggle through VT. That’s an odd position to take and one suggestive of other things going on.

All of which isn’t good for the mode at all. Stuck players (and I chat with them all the time) drop the mode or do the bare minimum (if they remember to do the bare minimum). That means they aren’t around to match or are only around sporadically—leading to mismatches, lengthy matchmaking and other undesirable outcomes.

Dr. Zola

Ironman3000

Honestly, I'm not 100% locked into putting all the rewards in objectives. It was just an example of how Kabam doesn't have to build new tech that'll take 3+ months to fix the issues.

I'd be fine if they were just given to those who start higher to have to earn their rewards and keep the climb the same.

GroundedWisdom

Which is pretty much how I interpreted the Announcement. I think it gets more sticky the more you take Rewards out of the ascension.