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

13468924

Comments

  • willrun4adonutwillrun4adonut Member Posts: 4,185 ★★★★★
    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: 21,837 ★★★★★

    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: 36,512 ★★★★★

    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: 4,185 ★★★★★

    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: 36,512 ★★★★★

    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: 454 ★★★

    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: 36,512 ★★★★★
    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: 19,427 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: 19,427 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: 454 ★★★
    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: 36,512 ★★★★★
    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: 36,512 ★★★★★
    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.
  • 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.
  • CoppinCoppin Member Posts: 2,601 ★★★★★

    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.
    My attitude?.. my tone? People are literally asking to get free rewards in a COMPETITIVE MODE, just for participating... Asking to Kabam to stop making them lose coins when they lose a match and i got an attitude/tone? People feel entitled to moving up the ranks just for winning 1 or 2 matches with no impact on their loses....
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,512 ★★★★★

    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.
    The prog level of the players isn't necessarily part of the conversation as much as roster is right? Talking about low accounts versus mid and high accounts, it just happens that high, mid and low accounts are more likely to be paragon, tb, uc respectively.
    Not sure I'm following.
    I thought the implication was to lower Rewards because "lower Players" are getting too much. In which case, progression level has an effect on what they're actually getting. The Store regulates what they can buy no matter the number of Trophies they earn.
    To be honest, it is starting to sound like a conversation that is about keeping other Players from getting Rewards, and the only time I support that is either a) they're getting Rewards unjustly, or b) the Rewards are damaging to their position in the game or the system in general.
    I'm not totally convinced in either case in the VT.
  • StatureStature Member Posts: 454 ★★★

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

    That's true in AQ as well - everyone gets the same glory for a map but store is different. So unlikely to change right? Unless the change the rewards to materials/shards (like in AW) store will always be progression based.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,512 ★★★★★
    Stature said:

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

    That's true in AQ as well - everyone gets the same glory for a map but store is different. So unlikely to change right? Unless the change the rewards to materials/shards (like in AW) store will always be progression based.
    Well, it's the easiest way to appropriate what Players can earn and regulate what effect it has on their progress. Meaning, not so much that it becomes a detriment.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,512 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    Stature said:

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

    That's true in AQ as well - everyone gets the same glory for a map but store is different. So unlikely to change right? Unless the change the rewards to materials/shards (like in AW) store will always be progression based.
    Well, it's the easiest way to appropriate what Players can earn and regulate what effect it has on their progress. Meaning, not so much that it becomes a detriment.
    So now are you saying the store is designed to make prizes appropriate to the player’s progression level?

    Dr. Zola
    I'm saying the Store regulates Rewards based on progression level, yes. Just like any Store in the game that sets limits on what's available.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,512 ★★★★★
    Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
    Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
  • CoppinCoppin Member Posts: 2,601 ★★★★★
    People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
    What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,512 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
    Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.

    The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

    Dr. Zola
    So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
This discussion has been closed.