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....
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
not true in this regard - you can save a load of trophies till you are Para and buy twice or even 3 times the amount of items just because you got "easier" matches when you where still Uncollected and earned easier rewards
most other things in the game "resets" once you gain the next progression level, the store here get cheaper as you progress and thus by hoarding when you have the easier match making you can just dump all trophies once you get up to the desired level and because you are able to hoard so much (150 000 most of any type of token you can save in the game) of the the trophies it gives you an advantage.
Hey guys, I'm a 7-year player who's purposely still a TB because I don't want to push title progression. It's 100% my choice to be a TB still because it's very easy to progress titles if you want to. I'm very upset that TB players have a limited BG store and it's not fair that my rewards feel less valuable than they are for Paragons. Instead of just progressing my title or accepting that it's 100% my choice to slow my progression I'm going to argue that the store is unfair for 3 months on the forums.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Hey guys, I'm a 7-year player who's purposely still a TB because I don't want to push title progression. It's 100% my choice to be a TB still because it's very easy to progress titles if you want to. I'm very upset that TB players have a limited BG store and it's not fair that my rewards feel less valuable than they are for Paragons. Instead of just progressing my title or accepting that it's 100% my choice to slow my progression I'm going to argue that the store is unfair for 3 months on the forums.
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?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
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?
In the only other PVP mode in the game, which is AW, the rewards are not gated by progression. If you are good enough to compete in the gold tier, you get the 6-star nexus/shard and rank up materials irrespective of whether you are a Paragon or a UC. This is not so in BG.
If you are a Paragon and are upset that there are UC and Cav players ahead of you in VT, that is understandable. If you think that they should face you or players similar to the once you face on their path to progression, I sympathise with that view and largely agree with it. However, if you think they should do this but then should not get access to the same store that you have access to, I find that hypocritical. You can either have random matchmaking (or ELO based one) and have everyone get the same rewards or have strength based matchmaking and have progression adjusted rewards. Either both are relative or neither is. You cannot demand that UCs face Paragons to progress in BG but get only a pittance of the rewards.
For all the sports analogies, there is no competition which adjusts the winnings based on the winning team's strength, budget or any other factor.
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?
In the only other PVP mode in the game, which is AW, the rewards are not gated by progression. If you are good enough to compete in the gold tier, you get the 6-star nexus/shard and rank up materials irrespective of whether you are a Paragon or a UC. This is not so in BG.
If you are a Paragon and are upset that there are UC and Cav players ahead of you in VT, that is understandable. If you think that they should face you or players similar to the once you face on their path to progression, I sympathise with that view and largely agree with it. However, if you think they should do this but then should not get access to the same store that you have access to, I find that hypocritical. You can either have random matchmaking (or ELO based one) and have everyone get the same rewards or have strength based matchmaking and have progression adjusted rewards. Either both are relative or neither is. You cannot demand that UCs face Paragons to progress in BG but get only a pittance of the rewards.
For all the sports analogies, there is no competition which adjusts the winnings based on the winning team's strength, budget or any other factor.
1- War has not rewards gated cause its an Alliance decision to take such players. Have u ever seen in any competitive alliance that will take any player in?... They even ask for a minimum prestiege and even then for a roster check to ensure they have the right champs to work around.
2- Hypocritical is to ask for fair matches to their accounts, ask for an easier VT experience without losses being punished and getting the same currency as rewards, then shield that argument with a "price of item" argument when its their own choice to stay in that progression.
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?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
Yup. He changes his arguments just to continue the argument and then denies his previous argument like we all don't remember him claiming the exact opposite in another thread. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of trolling.
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.
You may have missed the point.
Let me try to retrace the argument arc:
1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens. 2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable). 3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items. 4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3). 5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do. 6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system. 7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.
1- War has not rewards gated cause its an Alliance decision to take such players. Have u ever seen in any competitive alliance that will take any player in?... They even ask for a minimum prestiege and even then for a roster check to ensure they have the right champs to work around.
2- Hypocritical is to ask for fair matches to their accounts, ask for an easier VT experience without losses being punished and getting the same currency as rewards, then shield that argument with a "price of item" argument when its their own choice to stay in that progression.
There are far more relaxed alliances than competitive ones. Majority of the alliances are made up of a mix of progression levels. Earlier in the thread DNA has mentioned that his alliance has many progressing players who benefit from the AW rewards. What you see posted on the forums and other online boards are only the most vocal players and not the norm. G3 is top 4,500 alliances, thats ~100K players not the 50 people who are most active on forums. There are lots of UCs and Cavs in there. The changes on rewards and revives has actually revived the mode.
At the minimum you want those 100-200K players playing in BG. Adjust for timezones and time spent on the game, you probably won't have more than 5% of those online most of the time. AW is not time constrained, BG is. If you restrict BG to those players who you deem as competitive, the game mode is dead on arrival.
Same currency is not same rewards. In AQ you can run 3 BGs with different maps for different team strengths and you can still get same rewards. There it makes sense to gate the rewards by store. Fair matchmaking is BG equivalent of that. If AQ was only map 8 and everyone had to play that, nobody would put up with having a differential store. Some people would give up on the mode and eventually a handful of people/alliances would play (or rewards would have to be bumped up enough to attract more people to the mode). If that's what you want from BGs, that's alright but I don't think the mode will last long in that form.
Progression is a choice. It is also a choice to engage with the game mode. Rewards are incentives for players to do so. It is also hypocritical to ask for easier matches and easier rewards for oneself and demand that others do the heavy lifting and subsidise your rewards. You want weaker teams to play, engage in harder matches than the ones you do (much harder, given that you want to play them) and then also get lesser rewards than you get for winning far easier matches. Hiding behind the term "currency" does not change that.
If you get 6 star shards and rank up materials for beating a UC team in BG, why shouldn't your opponent not get the same for beating you? Why would that player even play the mode if that is the expectation? If they don't play, nothing is going to change for you anyway, you still face the same teams you are facing now (since the others are gone) and still struggling for progression. You just made things worse for one set of players without improving it for anyone. If that is the endgame here, fair. I don't see the point of it and it seems spiteful for no apparent reason.
Returning to OP's post - pretty well thought-out suggestions.
Regarding point #1 on FRUSTRATION, I would add on, as I often do, that this would likely require changing to the reward objectives as well.
The current structure is rewards for winning streak (progressing the tier), and then the objectives rewards for participation regardless of the winning streak (600 tokens for completing any match, and then 200 tokens for winning any 1/2/3 matches). The objectives have the purpose of making players feel rewarded even if they are not progressing up the tier. A win-loss-win player might not make any Progress, but they still earn the Win 2 Objective as well as the Complete 3 Matches objective.
If the new system removes the 'pain of loss' by 50%, then it would follow that Kabam has no incentive to psychologically motivate players to keep playing BG with the Complete 3 Matches objective anymore.
This would have knock-on effects to your FRIVOLOUSNESS point, as the calculus of rewards that players earn if they start in different tiers might have to change as well.
Of course, it would be player friendly if Kabam made the changes and kept the same objectives, but the pragmatic side of me can't help but think of Kabam giving something while also taking something away.
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?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably. No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there. Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
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.
You may have missed the point.
Let me try to retrace the argument arc:
1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens. 2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable). 3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items. 4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3). 5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do. 6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system. 7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.
That’s where we are I think.
Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out." What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
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?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably. No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there. Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
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.
You may have missed the point.
Let me try to retrace the argument arc:
1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens. 2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable). 3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items. 4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3). 5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do. 6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system. 7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.
That’s where we are I think.
Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out." What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?
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?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably. No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there. Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
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.
You may have missed the point.
Let me try to retrace the argument arc:
1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens. 2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable). 3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items. 4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3). 5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do. 6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system. 7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.
That’s where we are I think.
Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out." What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?
Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
Comments
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.
Dr. Zola
most other things in the game "resets" once you gain the next progression level, the store here get cheaper as you progress and thus by hoarding when you have the easier match making you can just dump all trophies once you get up to the desired level and because you are able to hoard so much (150 000 most of any type of token you can save in the game) of the the trophies it gives you an advantage.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
Dr. Zola
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?
If you are a Paragon and are upset that there are UC and Cav players ahead of you in VT, that is understandable. If you think that they should face you or players similar to the once you face on their path to progression, I sympathise with that view and largely agree with it. However, if you think they should do this but then should not get access to the same store that you have access to, I find that hypocritical. You can either have random matchmaking (or ELO based one) and have everyone get the same rewards or have strength based matchmaking and have progression adjusted rewards. Either both are relative or neither is. You cannot demand that UCs face Paragons to progress in BG but get only a pittance of the rewards.
For all the sports analogies, there is no competition which adjusts the winnings based on the winning team's strength, budget or any other factor.
2- Hypocritical is to ask for fair matches to their accounts, ask for an easier VT experience without losses being punished and getting the same currency as rewards, then shield that argument with a "price of item" argument when its their own choice to stay in that progression.
Let me try to retrace the argument arc:
1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.
That’s where we are I think.
Dr. Zola
At the minimum you want those 100-200K players playing in BG. Adjust for timezones and time spent on the game, you probably won't have more than 5% of those online most of the time. AW is not time constrained, BG is. If you restrict BG to those players who you deem as competitive, the game mode is dead on arrival.
Same currency is not same rewards. In AQ you can run 3 BGs with different maps for different team strengths and you can still get same rewards. There it makes sense to gate the rewards by store. Fair matchmaking is BG equivalent of that. If AQ was only map 8 and everyone had to play that, nobody would put up with having a differential store. Some people would give up on the mode and eventually a handful of people/alliances would play (or rewards would have to be bumped up enough to attract more people to the mode). If that's what you want from BGs, that's alright but I don't think the mode will last long in that form.
Progression is a choice. It is also a choice to engage with the game mode. Rewards are incentives for players to do so. It is also hypocritical to ask for easier matches and easier rewards for oneself and demand that others do the heavy lifting and subsidise your rewards. You want weaker teams to play, engage in harder matches than the ones you do (much harder, given that you want to play them) and then also get lesser rewards than you get for winning far easier matches. Hiding behind the term "currency" does not change that.
If you get 6 star shards and rank up materials for beating a UC team in BG, why shouldn't your opponent not get the same for beating you? Why would that player even play the mode if that is the expectation? If they don't play, nothing is going to change for you anyway, you still face the same teams you are facing now (since the others are gone) and still struggling for progression. You just made things worse for one set of players without improving it for anyone. If that is the endgame here, fair. I don't see the point of it and it seems spiteful for no apparent reason.
Regarding point #1 on FRUSTRATION, I would add on, as I often do, that this would likely require changing to the reward objectives as well.
The current structure is rewards for winning streak (progressing the tier), and then the objectives rewards for participation regardless of the winning streak (600 tokens for completing any match, and then 200 tokens for winning any 1/2/3 matches). The objectives have the purpose of making players feel rewarded even if they are not progressing up the tier. A win-loss-win player might not make any Progress, but they still earn the Win 2 Objective as well as the Complete 3 Matches objective.
If the new system removes the 'pain of loss' by 50%, then it would follow that Kabam has no incentive to psychologically motivate players to keep playing BG with the Complete 3 Matches objective anymore.
This would have knock-on effects to your FRIVOLOUSNESS point, as the calculus of rewards that players earn if they start in different tiers might have to change as well.
Of course, it would be player friendly if Kabam made the changes and kept the same objectives, but the pragmatic side of me can't help but think of Kabam giving something while also taking something away.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason. I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
That's the mentality that we're dealing with. I don't have much time or patience for allowance of that argument.
Dr. Zola