**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Fix Battlegrounds in three easy steps (that we can argue about until the end of time)
This discussion has been closed.
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