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

13468924

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,644 ★★★★★

    Just think DNA, if you are gifted 12M in the arena, how is someone who never gets 12M in the arena supposed to compete with you?

    The biggest fallacy in GWs 'argument' is that starting the best players higher doesn't change who ends at the top in the end, it just makes those players unhappy. Regardless of where we start players a Cav is not going to be able to compete in the GC.

    Actually it does. It shortcuts one Player's journey up, and no one ever catches up because they have more hoops to jump through to get there.
    Meanwhile the shortcut Player is going up and up.
    Ok, answer my question I've asked a few times.

    Should Tiger Woods have to re-qualify for every PGA tournament or should he be able to join whichever PGA tournament he wants to because of his past performances?
    I suspect Tiger Woods is busy with his settlement. How does that relate to the game? It doesn't.
    Avoiding the question just makes you look bad GW. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no'. It isn't hard.
    I'm talking about this game. Sports analogies might be comparative examples, but they're not directly related to what we're talking about. Ask me if a Player should have to qualify every Season, my answer is yes. As long as there's a Season, everyone should jump through the same hoops.
    Fine, everyone starts at zero but we have to drop the roster bands that keep players like you from facing players like me. You can't have everyone start at 0 AND avoid fighting the top players.
    I'm sorry, what?
    If you think my concern is me fighting Players like you, you're not following.
    You can certainly avoid them meeting Top Players AT 0. I am so tired of the hypocrisy of this entire subject. I'm going to lay it out flat.
    This whole excuse about people being given an easy street because they can't take advantage of the system is just plain manipulation. People can twist perspectives until they become Popples, but the only people who want easy Wins are the ones pushing to bash people about "starting from 0". What's more is they actually have the nerve to call that a fair system because it's random.
    I've had enough of the Sports analogies. This is nothing short of arrogant entitlement. You want to beat the lowest Players? Do it when they fight their way up. Not at the door, so you can fast track your way to the GC.
    That's the exact problem with the system that currently resides in War. People have become so entitled to overpowering others and calling it skill that they're thoroughly offended at the thought of fighting someone their own size. There are enough Alliances in War that they still play but stopped caring, to make that system possible. Wait until that happens to BGs, and people stop caring. Good luck running the system with those few numbers caring. You'd have the same people coming up against each other either way because it's become so isolated.
    You talk about silos. Let's talk about the silo of "Top" vs. anyone else scavenging for enjoyment when the entire game mode serves ONE demographic. Go ahead and silo progress into homeostasis and see how long Players bother with it. I guarantee I've seen it happen before. There is a range of Players to account for, and their progress and experience matters just as much as the "Top". Which only exists because the numbers of everyone else support them.
    I'm not concerned about coming up against anyone's Account. I'm not the one that's offended by losing Fights I could reasonably win. When I'm beat, I'm beat.
    When the system ensures a guaranteed Loss because the numbers alone mean I'm so overpowered that no amount of skill will make a difference, at the START of a competition, that's not skill, buds. That's a set-up.
    I'm just still curious why you assume that the lowest and highest will be meeting every match.
    The comment I responded to suggested matching them from 0.
  • This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,644 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Just think DNA, if you are gifted 12M in the arena, how is someone who never gets 12M in the arena supposed to compete with you?

    The biggest fallacy in GWs 'argument' is that starting the best players higher doesn't change who ends at the top in the end, it just makes those players unhappy. Regardless of where we start players a Cav is not going to be able to compete in the GC.

    Actually it does. It shortcuts one Player's journey up, and no one ever catches up because they have more hoops to jump through to get there.
    Meanwhile the shortcut Player is going up and up.
    Ok, answer my question I've asked a few times.

    Should Tiger Woods have to re-qualify for every PGA tournament or should he be able to join whichever PGA tournament he wants to because of his past performances?
    I suspect Tiger Woods is busy with his settlement. How does that relate to the game? It doesn't.
    Avoiding the question just makes you look bad GW. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no'. It isn't hard.
    I'm talking about this game. Sports analogies might be comparative examples, but they're not directly related to what we're talking about. Ask me if a Player should have to qualify every Season, my answer is yes. As long as there's a Season, everyone should jump through the same hoops.
    Fine, everyone starts at zero but we have to drop the roster bands that keep players like you from facing players like me. You can't have everyone start at 0 AND avoid fighting the top players.
    I'm sorry, what?
    If you think my concern is me fighting Players like you, you're not following.
    You can certainly avoid them meeting Top Players AT 0. I am so tired of the hypocrisy of this entire subject. I'm going to lay it out flat.
    This whole excuse about people being given an easy street because they can't take advantage of the system is just plain manipulation. People can twist perspectives until they become Popples, but the only people who want easy Wins are the ones pushing to bash people about "starting from 0". What's more is they actually have the nerve to call that a fair system because it's random.
    I've had enough of the Sports analogies. This is nothing short of arrogant entitlement. You want to beat the lowest Players? Do it when they fight their way up. Not at the door, so you can fast track your way to the GC.
    That's the exact problem with the system that currently resides in War. People have become so entitled to overpowering others and calling it skill that they're thoroughly offended at the thought of fighting someone their own size. There are enough Alliances in War that they still play but stopped caring, to make that system possible. Wait until that happens to BGs, and people stop caring. Good luck running the system with those few numbers caring. You'd have the same people coming up against each other either way because it's become so isolated.
    You talk about silos. Let's talk about the silo of "Top" vs. anyone else scavenging for enjoyment when the entire game mode serves ONE demographic. Go ahead and silo progress into homeostasis and see how long Players bother with it. I guarantee I've seen it happen before. There is a range of Players to account for, and their progress and experience matters just as much as the "Top". Which only exists because the numbers of everyone else support them.
    I'm not concerned about coming up against anyone's Account. I'm not the one that's offended by losing Fights I could reasonably win. When I'm beat, I'm beat.
    When the system ensures a guaranteed Loss because the numbers alone mean I'm so overpowered that no amount of skill will make a difference, at the START of a competition, that's not skill, buds. That's a set-up.
    None of what you’re talking about ever actually happens in practice. Nothing about either ELO matching in general or my modified suggestions involving it serves only one demographic, unless you count rational actors as a single demographic. Nothing about the specifics of what’s been discussed allows strong players to consistently beat up weaker ones. In fact, ELO forbids this in a way roster matching doesn’t. And as to arrogant entitlement, I think that’s a sufficiently hysterical assertion that we can leave it to its own merits.

    Special treatment is just that. It’s special, and by definition not fair. I think most people would be willing to make the very reasonable compromise to allow this unfair special advantage under special circumstances, I’ve laid out my own version of this, but i also think anyone unwilling to even call it an unfair special advantage in the first place and acknowledge the concession as a concession is someone we will ultimately have to abandon in the conversation, because without an honest appraisal of what the real world trade offs are, there’s no way to consider reasonable alternatives or the cost benefit of any suggestion.

    This bears staring directly. ELO matching does not allow matching players so unbalanced that one side has no chance of winning. The only time that happens is when the ELO rating itself is horribly wrong. ELO matches players that have a 50% chance to beat each other. That’s it’s mathematical foundation. If I wanted to be as callous as some others, I would say anyone opposed to ELO is probably someone currently beating up inferior competitors at high percentage and is afraid of facing equal competition.
    What I was referring to is the previous comment about letting the largest Accounts take on Players from 0.
    As for the rest, we can disagree until the cows come home, but War is now centered around one demographic. The Top. The recent changes are an example. The Rewards increase, the Matchmaking allowing absolutely no reason with the sizes, you name it. It's been structured to benefit the Top, and that's it. I'm not going to debate that. It's apparent in every change that comes.
    You can't do that with a PVP mode that involves Players with such a range. They will stop playing it. They will stop caring.
    I wasn't rebutting your suggestions. I was responding to the OP's suggestion to have random Matches from the beginning. I'm quite honestly, tired of people claiming others have an advantage just because there is protection from them TAKING advantage of them.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,846 Guardian

    Just think DNA, if you are gifted 12M in the arena, how is someone who never gets 12M in the arena supposed to compete with you?

    The biggest fallacy in GWs 'argument' is that starting the best players higher doesn't change who ends at the top in the end, it just makes those players unhappy. Regardless of where we start players a Cav is not going to be able to compete in the GC.

    Actually it does. It shortcuts one Player's journey up, and no one ever catches up because they have more hoops to jump through to get there.
    Meanwhile the shortcut Player is going up and up.
    Ok, answer my question I've asked a few times.

    Should Tiger Woods have to re-qualify for every PGA tournament or should he be able to join whichever PGA tournament he wants to because of his past performances?
    I suspect Tiger Woods is busy with his settlement. How does that relate to the game? It doesn't.
    Avoiding the question just makes you look bad GW. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no'. It isn't hard.
    I'm talking about this game. Sports analogies might be comparative examples, but they're not directly related to what we're talking about. Ask me if a Player should have to qualify every Season, my answer is yes. As long as there's a Season, everyone should jump through the same hoops.
    Fine, everyone starts at zero but we have to drop the roster bands that keep players like you from facing players like me. You can't have everyone start at 0 AND avoid fighting the top players.
    I'm sorry, what?
    If you think my concern is me fighting Players like you, you're not following.
    You can certainly avoid them meeting Top Players AT 0. I am so tired of the hypocrisy of this entire subject. I'm going to lay it out flat.
    This whole excuse about people being given an easy street because they can't take advantage of the system is just plain manipulation. People can twist perspectives until they become Popples, but the only people who want easy Wins are the ones pushing to bash people about "starting from 0". What's more is they actually have the nerve to call that a fair system because it's random.
    I've had enough of the Sports analogies. This is nothing short of arrogant entitlement. You want to beat the lowest Players? Do it when they fight their way up. Not at the door, so you can fast track your way to the GC.
    That's the exact problem with the system that currently resides in War. People have become so entitled to overpowering others and calling it skill that they're thoroughly offended at the thought of fighting someone their own size. There are enough Alliances in War that they still play but stopped caring, to make that system possible. Wait until that happens to BGs, and people stop caring. Good luck running the system with those few numbers caring. You'd have the same people coming up against each other either way because it's become so isolated.
    You talk about silos. Let's talk about the silo of "Top" vs. anyone else scavenging for enjoyment when the entire game mode serves ONE demographic. Go ahead and silo progress into homeostasis and see how long Players bother with it. I guarantee I've seen it happen before. There is a range of Players to account for, and their progress and experience matters just as much as the "Top". Which only exists because the numbers of everyone else support them.
    I'm not concerned about coming up against anyone's Account. I'm not the one that's offended by losing Fights I could reasonably win. When I'm beat, I'm beat.
    When the system ensures a guaranteed Loss because the numbers alone mean I'm so overpowered that no amount of skill will make a difference, at the START of a competition, that's not skill, buds. That's a set-up.
    I'm just still curious why you assume that the lowest and highest will be meeting every match.
    The comment I responded to suggested matching them from 0.
    I don’t recall anyone seriously suggesting that we do that, but it is important to realize why. It isn’t because it is unfair, it is because it is impractical. Here’s an example of a perfectly fair competition in which everyone must face everyone else: full round robin.

    In any competition in which this option is practical, everyone faces everyone else, at least once. This is generally considered fair. It becomes impractical when the number of competitors gets too large, but I would love to see someone show up to a round robin competition and declare that they would not face certain competitors because it was unfair for them to do so. I’d like to see someone attempt to make that argument anywhere outside of an Internet forum.

    We don’t do round robin because it is obviously impractical. But the fact that round robin competitions are intrinsically fair cuts the legs out from under the argument that allowing such match ups is unfair. We don’t suggest such things because they are impractical, because they hurt other interests, because they can’t be reasonably implemented in ways that eliminate troublesome side effects. But not because they are unfair.

    If it was magically possible to conduct a full round robin tournament between everyone, I’d vote to do that. We’d be here until the sun burned out, so very strong magic would have to be involved, but I’d do it. And I would dare anyone make the argument that this was unfair in a setting where they couldn’t hide behind the limits of Internet forums.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,644 ★★★★★
    edited March 2023
    DNA3000 said:

    Just think DNA, if you are gifted 12M in the arena, how is someone who never gets 12M in the arena supposed to compete with you?

    The biggest fallacy in GWs 'argument' is that starting the best players higher doesn't change who ends at the top in the end, it just makes those players unhappy. Regardless of where we start players a Cav is not going to be able to compete in the GC.

    Actually it does. It shortcuts one Player's journey up, and no one ever catches up because they have more hoops to jump through to get there.
    Meanwhile the shortcut Player is going up and up.
    Ok, answer my question I've asked a few times.

    Should Tiger Woods have to re-qualify for every PGA tournament or should he be able to join whichever PGA tournament he wants to because of his past performances?
    I suspect Tiger Woods is busy with his settlement. How does that relate to the game? It doesn't.
    Avoiding the question just makes you look bad GW. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no'. It isn't hard.
    I'm talking about this game. Sports analogies might be comparative examples, but they're not directly related to what we're talking about. Ask me if a Player should have to qualify every Season, my answer is yes. As long as there's a Season, everyone should jump through the same hoops.
    Fine, everyone starts at zero but we have to drop the roster bands that keep players like you from facing players like me. You can't have everyone start at 0 AND avoid fighting the top players.
    I'm sorry, what?
    If you think my concern is me fighting Players like you, you're not following.
    You can certainly avoid them meeting Top Players AT 0. I am so tired of the hypocrisy of this entire subject. I'm going to lay it out flat.
    This whole excuse about people being given an easy street because they can't take advantage of the system is just plain manipulation. People can twist perspectives until they become Popples, but the only people who want easy Wins are the ones pushing to bash people about "starting from 0". What's more is they actually have the nerve to call that a fair system because it's random.
    I've had enough of the Sports analogies. This is nothing short of arrogant entitlement. You want to beat the lowest Players? Do it when they fight their way up. Not at the door, so you can fast track your way to the GC.
    That's the exact problem with the system that currently resides in War. People have become so entitled to overpowering others and calling it skill that they're thoroughly offended at the thought of fighting someone their own size. There are enough Alliances in War that they still play but stopped caring, to make that system possible. Wait until that happens to BGs, and people stop caring. Good luck running the system with those few numbers caring. You'd have the same people coming up against each other either way because it's become so isolated.
    You talk about silos. Let's talk about the silo of "Top" vs. anyone else scavenging for enjoyment when the entire game mode serves ONE demographic. Go ahead and silo progress into homeostasis and see how long Players bother with it. I guarantee I've seen it happen before. There is a range of Players to account for, and their progress and experience matters just as much as the "Top". Which only exists because the numbers of everyone else support them.
    I'm not concerned about coming up against anyone's Account. I'm not the one that's offended by losing Fights I could reasonably win. When I'm beat, I'm beat.
    When the system ensures a guaranteed Loss because the numbers alone mean I'm so overpowered that no amount of skill will make a difference, at the START of a competition, that's not skill, buds. That's a set-up.
    I'm just still curious why you assume that the lowest and highest will be meeting every match.
    The comment I responded to suggested matching them from 0.
    I don’t recall anyone seriously suggesting that we do that, but it is important to realize why. It isn’t because it is unfair, it is because it is impractical. Here’s an example of a perfectly fair competition in which everyone must face everyone else: full round robin.

    In any competition in which this option is practical, everyone faces everyone else, at least once. This is generally considered fair. It becomes impractical when the number of competitors gets too large, but I would love to see someone show up to a round robin competition and declare that they would not face certain competitors because it was unfair for them to do so. I’d like to see someone attempt to make that argument anywhere outside of an Internet forum.

    We don’t do round robin because it is obviously impractical. But the fact that round robin competitions are intrinsically fair cuts the legs out from under the argument that allowing such match ups is unfair. We don’t suggest such things because they are impractical, because they hurt other interests, because they can’t be reasonably implemented in ways that eliminate troublesome side effects. But not because they are unfair.

    If it was magically possible to conduct a full round robin tournament between everyone, I’d vote to do that. We’d be here until the sun burned out, so very strong magic would have to be involved, but I’d do it. And I would dare anyone make the argument that this was unfair in a setting where they couldn’t hide behind the limits of Internet forums.
    There's unfair, as in "I lost and I don't like it.", and then there's unfair as in "The game includes me in a competition I have no chance of winning because the vast expanse of Roster differences mean if I come up against the largest, there's no winning that.".
    It isn't just a full round. It's Fight after Fight because the people who are running it competitively are doing so from the onset, and by the time everyone pushes forward, there's about a week left to progress. That is, barring anyone waiting to start themselves. Then the process is pin ball.
    People get too wrapped up in the word fair, but in actuality, it is wrong. It is wrong to include Players that are using Rosters that have no chance of winning, and expecting them to continually try and fail for the ease of Players with larger Rosters. Their gaming experience, their progress, matters more than that. They're not sacrificial lambs. They're human beings trying to play the game mode.
    Again, there is a fine line between competitiveness and taking the desire to even play it because no matter what these Players do, they can't win out the gate. Numerically, they can't. Unless you have someone throwing a Match or absent-mindedly not paying attention, they're never going to do as much Damage as their Opponent. The differences in Champions make it so.
    Just because it's a competition doesn't mean the gaming experience of Players who are using lower Accounts is not valid or significant. That's always been my point. You cause the majority to be disinterested, and let's be honest they're the majority because the minority is the Top, then you have a dwindling system.
    However, it's not about "us vs. them", and it's not about favoring one demographic over the other. It's about having a game mode that's reasonably challenging, and at the same time enjoyable, for as many Players as possible. That's fairness.
  • This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,644 ★★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    Just think DNA, if you are gifted 12M in the arena, how is someone who never gets 12M in the arena supposed to compete with you?

    The biggest fallacy in GWs 'argument' is that starting the best players higher doesn't change who ends at the top in the end, it just makes those players unhappy. Regardless of where we start players a Cav is not going to be able to compete in the GC.

    Actually it does. It shortcuts one Player's journey up, and no one ever catches up because they have more hoops to jump through to get there.
    Meanwhile the shortcut Player is going up and up.
    Ok, answer my question I've asked a few times.

    Should Tiger Woods have to re-qualify for every PGA tournament or should he be able to join whichever PGA tournament he wants to because of his past performances?
    I suspect Tiger Woods is busy with his settlement. How does that relate to the game? It doesn't.
    Avoiding the question just makes you look bad GW. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no'. It isn't hard.
    I'm talking about this game. Sports analogies might be comparative examples, but they're not directly related to what we're talking about. Ask me if a Player should have to qualify every Season, my answer is yes. As long as there's a Season, everyone should jump through the same hoops.
    Fine, everyone starts at zero but we have to drop the roster bands that keep players like you from facing players like me. You can't have everyone start at 0 AND avoid fighting the top players.
    I'm sorry, what?
    If you think my concern is me fighting Players like you, you're not following.
    You can certainly avoid them meeting Top Players AT 0. I am so tired of the hypocrisy of this entire subject. I'm going to lay it out flat.
    This whole excuse about people being given an easy street because they can't take advantage of the system is just plain manipulation. People can twist perspectives until they become Popples, but the only people who want easy Wins are the ones pushing to bash people about "starting from 0". What's more is they actually have the nerve to call that a fair system because it's random.
    I've had enough of the Sports analogies. This is nothing short of arrogant entitlement. You want to beat the lowest Players? Do it when they fight their way up. Not at the door, so you can fast track your way to the GC.
    That's the exact problem with the system that currently resides in War. People have become so entitled to overpowering others and calling it skill that they're thoroughly offended at the thought of fighting someone their own size. There are enough Alliances in War that they still play but stopped caring, to make that system possible. Wait until that happens to BGs, and people stop caring. Good luck running the system with those few numbers caring. You'd have the same people coming up against each other either way because it's become so isolated.
    You talk about silos. Let's talk about the silo of "Top" vs. anyone else scavenging for enjoyment when the entire game mode serves ONE demographic. Go ahead and silo progress into homeostasis and see how long Players bother with it. I guarantee I've seen it happen before. There is a range of Players to account for, and their progress and experience matters just as much as the "Top". Which only exists because the numbers of everyone else support them.
    I'm not concerned about coming up against anyone's Account. I'm not the one that's offended by losing Fights I could reasonably win. When I'm beat, I'm beat.
    When the system ensures a guaranteed Loss because the numbers alone mean I'm so overpowered that no amount of skill will make a difference, at the START of a competition, that's not skill, buds. That's a set-up.
    I'm just still curious why you assume that the lowest and highest will be meeting every match.
    The comment I responded to suggested matching them from 0.
    I don’t recall anyone seriously suggesting that we do that, but it is important to realize why. It isn’t because it is unfair, it is because it is impractical. Here’s an example of a perfectly fair competition in which everyone must face everyone else: full round robin.

    In any competition in which this option is practical, everyone faces everyone else, at least once. This is generally considered fair. It becomes impractical when the number of competitors gets too large, but I would love to see someone show up to a round robin competition and declare that they would not face certain competitors because it was unfair for them to do so. I’d like to see someone attempt to make that argument anywhere outside of an Internet forum.

    We don’t do round robin because it is obviously impractical. But the fact that round robin competitions are intrinsically fair cuts the legs out from under the argument that allowing such match ups is unfair. We don’t suggest such things because they are impractical, because they hurt other interests, because they can’t be reasonably implemented in ways that eliminate troublesome side effects. But not because they are unfair.

    If it was magically possible to conduct a full round robin tournament between everyone, I’d vote to do that. We’d be here until the sun burned out, so very strong magic would have to be involved, but I’d do it. And I would dare anyone make the argument that this was unfair in a setting where they couldn’t hide behind the limits of Internet forums.
    There's unfair, as in "I lost and I don't like it.", and then there's unfair as in "The game includes me in a competition I have no chance of winning because the vast expanse of Roster differences mean if I come up against the largest, there's no winning that.".
    It isn't just a full round. It's Fight after Fight because the people who are running it competitively are doing so from the onset, and by the time everyone pushes forward, there's about a week left to progress. That is, barring anyone waiting to start themselves. Then the process is pin ball.
    People get too wrapped up in the word fair, but in actuality, it is wrong. It is wrong to include Players that are using Rosters that have no chance of winning, and expecting them to continually try and fail for the ease of Players with larger Rosters. Their gaming experience, their progress, matters more than that. They're not sacrificial lambs. They're human beings trying to play the game mode.
    Again, there is a fine line between competitiveness and taking the desire to even play it because no matter what these Players do, they can't win out the gate. Numerically, they can't. Unless you have someone throwing a Match or absent-mindedly not paying attention, they're never going to do as much Damage as their Opponent. The differences in Champions make it so.
    Just because it's a competition doesn't mean the gaming experience of Players who are using lower Accounts is not valid or significant. That's always been my point. You cause the majority to be disinterested, and let's be honest they're the majority because the minority is the Top, then you have a dwindling system.
    However, it's not about "us vs. them", and it's not about favoring one demographic over the other. It's about having a game mode that's reasonably challenging, and at the same time enjoyable, for as many Players as possible. That's fairness.
    The majority is actually the average player.
    I meant in terms of the highest, in comparison to others. I get what you're saying though.
  • willrun4adonutwillrun4adonut Member Posts: 4,990 ★★★★★
    I'm just curious what level/stage/tier/whatever they're called DNA3000 and GroundedWisdom typically finish in as they are the two most active on this thread. Sorry if it's already been posted in here, but there's a lot to read and reread.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Member Posts: 22,366 ★★★★★

    I'm just curious what level/stage/tier/whatever they're called DNA3000 and GroundedWisdom typically finish in as they are the two most active on this thread. Sorry if it's already been posted in here, but there's a lot to read and reread.

    What exactly would that prove?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,644 ★★★★★

    I'm just curious what level/stage/tier/whatever they're called DNA3000 and GroundedWisdom typically finish in as they are the two most active on this thread. Sorry if it's already been posted in here, but there's a lot to read and reread.

    I've stated in other Threads. I usually play casually. Finish around S3 or S2 most times. I like to play for fun, just for some extra Shards. I'm also totally fine with that.
    My concerns are for the system as a whole, not for my own benefit.
  • willrun4adonutwillrun4adonut Member Posts: 4,990 ★★★★★

    I'm just curious what level/stage/tier/whatever they're called DNA3000 and GroundedWisdom typically finish in as they are the two most active on this thread. Sorry if it's already been posted in here, but there's a lot to read and reread.

    I've stated in other Threads. I usually play casually. Finish around S3 or S2 most times. I like to play for fun, just for some extra Shards. I'm also totally fine with that.
    My concerns are for the system as a whole, not for my own benefit.
    Thanks. I was just wondering if you push for higher levels and are a grinder, or a casual player. I try to get to Gamma 2 and quit for the season so it's good hear from somebody on the other side (and selfishly, I'd like to get to GC faster and then be done with it).
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,644 ★★★★★

    I'm just curious what level/stage/tier/whatever they're called DNA3000 and GroundedWisdom typically finish in as they are the two most active on this thread. Sorry if it's already been posted in here, but there's a lot to read and reread.

    I've stated in other Threads. I usually play casually. Finish around S3 or S2 most times. I like to play for fun, just for some extra Shards. I'm also totally fine with that.
    My concerns are for the system as a whole, not for my own benefit.
    Thanks. I was just wondering if you push for higher levels and are a grinder, or a casual player. I try to get to Gamma 2 and quit for the season so it's good hear from somebody on the other side (and selfishly, I'd like to get to GC faster and then be done with it).
    I don't fault people for that specifically. No one likes a grind, for sure.
  • StatureStature Member Posts: 474 ★★★

    There's unfair, as in "I lost and I don't like it.", and then there's unfair as in "The game includes me in a competition I have no chance of winning because the vast expanse of Roster differences mean if I come up against the largest, there's no winning that."......
    .....However, it's not about "us vs. them", and it's not about favoring one demographic over the other. It's about having a game mode that's reasonably challenging, and at the same time enjoyable, for as many Players as possible. That's fairness.

    It might be useful at some point to articulate a system that you would like to see implemented. So far, over multiple threads and comments you have only said that you are against matching the weakest teams with the strongest repeatedly (or even always). No suggestion so far implies that (even a totally random matchmaking will not do that all the time). Hiding behind a strawman argument and blocking any progress on alternatives is not helpful.

    Any form of matchmaking needs to achieve two objectives
    1. Get a large number of people to play the mode. That requires incentives to make it worthwhile for them to play - rewards and potential to progress (within the mode as well as in the context of the larger game, i.e. resources to become stronger).
    2. Avoid arbitrages which create perverse incentives. Such as sandbagging or encouraging weakening of rosters which hurts the game in the long run. This requires that the overall efforts of players is aligned with the longer term objectives of the overall game.

    If you can suggest what you think works within these requirements, that would be helfpul than crying "unfair!", "wrong!" all the time.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,644 ★★★★★
    Stature said:

    There's unfair, as in "I lost and I don't like it.", and then there's unfair as in "The game includes me in a competition I have no chance of winning because the vast expanse of Roster differences mean if I come up against the largest, there's no winning that."......
    .....However, it's not about "us vs. them", and it's not about favoring one demographic over the other. It's about having a game mode that's reasonably challenging, and at the same time enjoyable, for as many Players as possible. That's fairness.

    It might be useful at some point to articulate a system that you would like to see implemented. So far, over multiple threads and comments you have only said that you are against matching the weakest teams with the strongest repeatedly (or even always). No suggestion so far implies that (even a totally random matchmaking will not do that all the time). Hiding behind a strawman argument and blocking any progress on alternatives is not helpful.

    Any form of matchmaking needs to achieve two objectives
    1. Get a large number of people to play the mode. That requires incentives to make it worthwhile for them to play - rewards and potential to progress (within the mode as well as in the context of the larger game, i.e. resources to become stronger).
    2. Avoid arbitrages which create perverse incentives. Such as sandbagging or encouraging weakening of rosters which hurts the game in the long run. This requires that the overall efforts of players is aligned with the longer term objectives of the overall game.

    If you can suggest what you think works within these requirements, that would be helfpul than crying "unfair!", "wrong!" all the time.
    I've offered a number of suggestions as to what I thought would be helpful. The most recent one, removing Seasons and applying DNA's suggestion of Roster-mitigated starting Matches, then having ELO take over, is one such suggestion. There have been other suggestions I've made all along the way.
    I'm not just arbitrarily disputing ideas. I'm expressing my chief concers for whatever they implement.
  • CoppinCoppin Member Posts: 2,601 ★★★★★
    edited March 2023
    I got my own proposition to fix the rewards, difficulty and stop ppl from going off..

    VT: eliminate the coin loss for losing and slowing people down from climbing; but reduce the rewads to half. The other half can be given in a chain of x number of objectives that goes as follow...
    Win 2 in a row, win 3 in a row (same as climbing the current ranks)
    Since VT doesnt punish losing anymore...only give points toward Solo and Alliance events for WINNING, take away the playing and finishing points. Also include minimum participation ammounts in Alliance event to receive rewards.. same format as old gifting event.
    I understand it seems cutthroat, but yeah I dont like leeches and people trying to just get free stuff for tapping a screen a few times.
  • GinjabredMonstaGinjabredMonsta Member, Guardian Posts: 6,482 Guardian
    Coppin said:


    I understand it seems cutthroat, but yeah I dont like leeches and people trying to just get free stuff for tapping a screen a few times.

    That is hardly what I’ve seen people requesting or suggesting. It’s a broad over generalization of what some may have said, or just a wrong opinion. So anyone who has a problem with the current design and structure of it is lazy and just trying to get free stuff from this apparently easy game mode where people just have to tape the screen a few times to win?

    People have voiced general concerns as well as voiced valid suggestions in this thread. While your suggestion is a viable option that could be considered, the tone and attitude behind it is far off.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,846 Guardian

    I'm just curious what level/stage/tier/whatever they're called DNA3000 and GroundedWisdom typically finish in as they are the two most active on this thread. Sorry if it's already been posted in here, but there's a lot to read and reread.

    So far the highest I’ve finished is Vibranium and the lowest Gold 1 in the post beta BG seasons.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,846 Guardian
    Coppin said:

    I got my own proposition to fix the rewards, difficulty and stop ppl from going off..

    VT: eliminate the coin loss for losing and slowing people down from climbing; but reduce the rewads to half. The other half can be given in a chain of x number of objectives that goes as follow...
    Win 2 in a row, win 3 in a row (same as climbing the current ranks)
    Since VT doesnt punish losing anymore...only give points toward Solo and Alliance events for WINNING, take away the playing and finishing points. Also include minimum participation ammounts in Alliance event to receive rewards.. same format as old gifting event.
    I understand it seems cutthroat, but yeah I dont like leeches and people trying to just get free stuff for tapping a screen a few times.

    Ironically, under this system you’d be giving out way more rewards to casual players. Probably more than Kabam would allow. Sure, you’d be removing rewards from people literally just tapping while blindfolded, but that amounts to only 3000 trophies per season. Any player than manages to climb to just Bronze 1 under the current system will likely get more rewards than that under the proposed system, as they would almost certainly be climbing much higher than that. Someone who currently has a 30% win rate would climb into gold playing just one or two matches a day on average.
  • StatureStature Member Posts: 474 ★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Ironically, under this system you’d be giving out way more rewards to casual players. Probably more than Kabam would allow. Sure, you’d be removing rewards from people literally just tapping while blindfolded, but that amounts to only 3000 trophies per season. Any player than manages to climb to just Bronze 1 under the current system will likely get more rewards than that under the proposed system, as they would almost certainly be climbing much higher than that. Someone who currently has a 30% win rate would climb into gold playing just one or two matches a day on average.

    Currently you can get 600x15 = 9000 trophies per season for losing 3 games every 2 days. Winning 1 match in every 3 will add another 3K trophies to it. 13 wins to get to Gold 3 gives another 10k trophies. Cut both the rewards to half and casual players will still get to gold 3 and get 11k trophies for the trouble. Which is probably same as what the casual player gets right now.
    You can keep the win-loss system from gold tier onwards, maybe with the revision to the number of token as per your suggestion.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,644 ★★★★★
    How many Trophies people get isn't an issue when the Store restricts what they can buy based on Titles.
  • GinjabredMonstaGinjabredMonsta Member, Guardian Posts: 6,482 Guardian

    How many Trophies people get isn't an issue when the Store restricts what they can buy based on Titles.

    Wait what? If that’s what you’ve been arguing this whole time I might have missed it, it why is progression based store items a problem?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,644 ★★★★★
    edited March 2023

    How many Trophies people get isn't an issue when the Store restricts what they can buy based on Titles.

    Wait what? If that’s what you’ve been arguing this whole time I might have missed it, it why is progression based store items a problem?
    Say what?
    I never said it was an issue. I asked why the amount of Trophies people are earning is an issue when the Store limits what they can buy.
  • This content has been removed.
  • CoppinCoppin Member Posts: 2,601 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Coppin said:

    I got my own proposition to fix the rewards, difficulty and stop ppl from going off..

    VT: eliminate the coin loss for losing and slowing people down from climbing; but reduce the rewads to half. The other half can be given in a chain of x number of objectives that goes as follow...
    Win 2 in a row, win 3 in a row (same as climbing the current ranks)
    Since VT doesnt punish losing anymore...only give points toward Solo and Alliance events for WINNING, take away the playing and finishing points. Also include minimum participation ammounts in Alliance event to receive rewards.. same format as old gifting event.
    I understand it seems cutthroat, but yeah I dont like leeches and people trying to just get free stuff for tapping a screen a few times.

    Ironically, under this system you’d be giving out way more rewards to casual players. Probably more than Kabam would allow. Sure, you’d be removing rewards from people literally just tapping while blindfolded, but that amounts to only 3000 trophies per season. Any player than manages to climb to just Bronze 1 under the current system will likely get more rewards than that under the proposed system, as they would almost certainly be climbing much higher than that. Someone who currently has a 30% win rate would climb into gold playing just one or two matches a day on average.
    If climbing easy is what they want . Sure let them get thru the VT for half the rewards...the other 15k are spread in a chain of objectives of winning matches in a row... With the setup i propose they would be trading off "easy trophies" for solo and alliance event points.. cause they would have to play and win those matches to get the points.
This discussion has been closed.