Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
What dont you get? If you cant understand something as simple as that then there is no hope for you i even dumbed it down, the point was that a uc fighting a equal match against a uc is just as difficult as a paragon fighting a equal match against a paragon something you'd understand if your mind wasnt on one track, you keep replying saying "wrong" and "that is a fact" but someone who can only ever think of themselves can never be right.
It's not the same, roster progression is completely diferent. an UC player wont focus on defensive rankups since he's supposed to focus on offense in order to progress.
An UC player might place Korg on defense but I can bet a large purse he's not spending sigs on that Korg, and if he is, he's placing BGs in a higher priority than progressing through story content, which would be a huge mistake.
Skill and dedication might be the same at lower levels, but roster depth is not.
Thats old information
Also theres alot of champs that double as both attackers and defenders
Yeah there is also the fact that a lot of lower progression people have over inflated rosters that don't fit their progression level; but still use "I'm only UC/Cav" as a shield...
Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
What dont you get? If you cant understand something as simple as that then there is no hope for you i even dumbed it down, the point was that a uc fighting a equal match against a uc is just as difficult as a paragon fighting a equal match against a paragon something you'd understand if your mind wasnt on one track, you keep replying saying "wrong" and "that is a fact" but someone who can only ever think of themselves can never be right.
Your argument makes so little sense that "wrong" is all that needs to be said.
In no world is an "equal" UC match nearly as difficult as an "equal" Paragon match. That's just a fact.
What you're arguing dosent make any sense the difficulty of the match depends on the players ability to combat it you must be forgetting in the situation of a equal paragon match both players are paragon they would have the skill set and roster to combat the other player
Alliance war does not gate rewards by progression. You get the same shards, rank-up materials etc. as others in your tier, irrespective of progression title. There is also some flexibility, such as weaker alliances can put up more points by running more BGs than alliances with stronger players. If rewards were gated, participation in wars would be far lower.
Alliance rewards for alliance game modes (AQ and AW) are, by convention, awarded to alliances, not individual players. In other words, an alliance earns X rewards, and each member of the alliance then receives the rewards the alliance itself earned. That's also the philosophy behind the fact that in many if not most cases, Kabam will not intercede when a player is kicked from an alliance and fails to receive alliance rewards. It was the alliance that earned them, not the player directly (although they have softened that stance over time).
However, when alliance rewards are not in the form of direct rewards but rather intermediate currency, even alliance rewards are gated by progress. The loyalty store is gated by progress. The glory store is gated by progress. The difference between alliance war and alliance quest and battlegrounds are not examples of Kabam decided to sometimes gate and sometimes not gate rewards. They are due mostly to historical differences in when those game modes were created and the practical limitations that existed at the time, and the fact that Kabam's perspective on alliance rewards itself has shifted over time for those modes.
There's also the fact that historically, alliances were far more homogenous than they are now. It was (and still is to some degree) extremely difficult to manage an AW alliance with a wide disparity in player strength, because that would have placed a huge cost burden on the weaker players. Similarly, it would have been extremely difficult to manage a wide disparity in player strength in an AQ focused alliance, because once upon a time everyone had to be running the same map. Doling out rewards gated to progress, when there were far fewer progression tiers and most alliance had most members relatively close together was not seen as necessary. But Battlegrounds allows players across four widely spaced progression tiers participate in the same collection of competitors. Not gating rewards by progress would be insane.
Alliance war does not gate rewards by progression. You get the same shards, rank-up materials etc. as others in your tier, irrespective of progression title. There is also some flexibility, such as weaker alliances can put up more points by running more BGs than alliances with stronger players. If rewards were gated, participation in wars would be far lower.
Alliance rewards for alliance game modes (AQ and AW) are, by convention, awarded to alliances, not individual players. In other words, an alliance earns X rewards, and each member of the alliance then receives the rewards the alliance itself earned. That's also the philosophy behind the fact that in many if not most cases, Kabam will not intercede when a player is kicked from an alliance and fails to receive alliance rewards. It was the alliance that earned them, not the player directly (although they have softened that stance over time).
However, when alliance rewards are not in the form of direct rewards but rather intermediate currency, even alliance rewards are gated by progress. The loyalty store is gated by progress. The glory store is gated by progress. The difference between alliance war and alliance quest and battlegrounds are not examples of Kabam decided to sometimes gate and sometimes not gate rewards. They are due mostly to historical differences in when those game modes were created and the practical limitations that existed at the time, and the fact that Kabam's perspective on alliance rewards itself has shifted over time for those modes.
There's also the fact that historically, alliances were far more homogenous than they are now. It was (and still is to some degree) extremely difficult to manage an AW alliance with a wide disparity in player strength, because that would have placed a huge cost burden on the weaker players. Similarly, it would have been extremely difficult to manage a wide disparity in player strength in an AQ focused alliance, because once upon a time everyone had to be running the same map. Doling out rewards gated to progress, when there were far fewer progression tiers and most alliance had most members relatively close together was not seen as necessary. But Battlegrounds allows players across four widely spaced progression tiers participate in the same collection of competitors. Not gating rewards by progress would be insane.
Alliance war does not gate rewards by progression. You get the same shards, rank-up materials etc. as others in your tier, irrespective of progression title. There is also some flexibility, such as weaker alliances can put up more points by running more BGs than alliances with stronger players. If rewards were gated, participation in wars would be far lower.
Ugh, you totally missed the point.
AW locks allys into their tiers between seasons and gives higher tired allys a higher multiplier for their points.
You clearly don't remember when they ran AW like BGs and how much of a disaster it was.
Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
What dont you get? If you cant understand something as simple as that then there is no hope for you i even dumbed it down, the point was that a uc fighting a equal match against a uc is just as difficult as a paragon fighting a equal match against a paragon something you'd understand if your mind wasnt on one track, you keep replying saying "wrong" and "that is a fact" but someone who can only ever think of themselves can never be right.
Your argument makes so little sense that "wrong" is all that needs to be said.
In no world is an "equal" UC match nearly as difficult as an "equal" Paragon match. That's just a fact.
What you're arguing dosent make any sense the difficulty of the match depends on the players ability to combat it you must be forgetting in the situation of a equal paragon match both players are paragon they would have the skill set and roster to combat the other player
The better your opponent the lower margin of error there is. 50k points in a match for an 10k players is basically a guaranteed win. 50k points for an 17k player is often a loss.
Also, no one answered my question of how many 5/65 5* sig 200 Korgs are being used because it totally blew up their argument.
Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
What dont you get? If you cant understand something as simple as that then there is no hope for you i even dumbed it down, the point was that a uc fighting a equal match against a uc is just as difficult as a paragon fighting a equal match against a paragon something you'd understand if your mind wasnt on one track, you keep replying saying "wrong" and "that is a fact" but someone who can only ever think of themselves can never be right.
Your argument makes so little sense that "wrong" is all that needs to be said.
In no world is an "equal" UC match nearly as difficult as an "equal" Paragon match. That's just a fact.
What you're arguing dosent make any sense the difficulty of the match depends on the players ability to combat it you must be forgetting in the situation of a equal paragon match both players are paragon they would have the skill set and roster to combat the other player
The better your opponent the lower margin of error there is. 50k points in a match for an 10k players is basically a guaranteed win. 50k points for an 17k player is often a loss.
Also, no one answered my question of how many 5/65 5* sig 200 Korgs are being used because it totally blew up their argument.
The same argument could be made for a Sig 200 5* Korg against another 5*. Which is easier to come by than a 6*. Close Matches exist althroughout the competition. There is no metric or measurement in the scoring that accounts for that. It's the same scoring mechanism for everyone. Now, I'm sure there may be some argument for Rewards that are appropriate to where a Player is at, but I find the claim that the Fights are vastly superior to be lacking perspective. What Players are using to come up against them is stronger as well. I'd even wager if you gave lower Players the larger Roster and the stronger Matches, their success wouldn't be that different. What the main point here is a rite of passage as it were.
I'd even wager if you gave lower Players the larger Roster and the stronger Matches, their success wouldn't be that different.
You'd lose that argument. We can't easily give a lower player a stronger roster, but we can perform the reverse experiment easily: give a higher player a weaker roster and see what happens when higher players face off against lower players with equal rosters. There are bad high progress players and good low progress players, but on average the higher players will mop the floor with the lower players. Higher players that play or experiment with battlegrounds with lower progress alt accounts almost universally have the experience that the matches are much easier.
There are four main contributors to the competitive strength of a player. Roster strength is one. Champion and Mechanical knowledge is the second (how the champs work, how the nodes work, etc). Combat experience is the third: specific experience that tells them what will work in which situations across all the different match ups and nodes you're going to experience. And twitch skill is the fourth: how dexterous the player is in actually playing the fights.
All other things being equal, the longer a player has played the game, the more likely it is they will have more of all four, and especially the middle two. You can remove one, like roster strength, but you will still leave the other three behind. I am at best a 50/50 player vs other players of similar progress and roster strength (in fact, I probably win closer to 40% of my matches). However, put me up against Cavalier players with equal rosters and my win percentage rises to over 80%. My twitch skills are probably average even against most Cavalier players, but my knowledge and experience vastly outweighs even the stronger Cavalier players. Most of the time when I'm playing BG on my Cav alt, I've won the match in the draft phase before the fighting starts. So much so that when I see someone drafting properly when playing my Cav alt, I assume I'm playing against another experienced player also playing an alt.
When I'm playing Paragons, I rarely see genuine doofuses. They are out there, but they aren't super common. Usually I face players that are below average, but still somewhat competent. Or really good players. Or complete monsters. But I face players on my Cav alt all the time that might as well be drafting and picking randomly. They don't know how to fight Korg. They don't even know how to fight IMIW. I can place a 5* Spot on defense and its practically an automatic win. They know CapIW is good, but not *why* he's good. I would absolutely *love* to face nothing but Cavalier players using my roster. To use all my good champs against me they would have to not ban them. Which means I get to use them also. I'll take those odds any day.
I'd even wager if you gave lower Players the larger Roster and the stronger Matches, their success wouldn't be that different.
You'd lose that argument. We can't easily give a lower player a stronger roster, but we can perform the reverse experiment easily: give a higher player a weaker roster and see what happens when higher players face off against lower players with equal rosters. There are bad high progress players and good low progress players, but on average the higher players will mop the floor with the lower players. Higher players that play or experiment with battlegrounds with lower progress alt accounts almost universally have the experience that the matches are much easier.
There are four main contributors to the competitive strength of a player. Roster strength is one. Champion and Mechanical knowledge is the second (how the champs work, how the nodes work, etc). Combat experience is the third: specific experience that tells them what will work in which situations across all the different match ups and nodes you're going to experience. And twitch skill is the fourth: how dexterous the player is in actually playing the fights.
All other things being equal, the longer a player has played the game, the more likely it is they will have more of all four, and especially the middle two. You can remove one, like roster strength, but you will still leave the other three behind. I am at best a 50/50 player vs other players of similar progress and roster strength (in fact, I probably win closer to 40% of my matches). However, put me up against Cavalier players with equal rosters and my win percentage rises to over 80%. My twitch skills are probably average even against most Cavalier players, but my knowledge and experience vastly outweighs even the stronger Cavalier players. Most of the time when I'm playing BG on my Cav alt, I've won the match in the draft phase before the fighting starts. So much so that when I see someone drafting properly when playing my Cav alt, I assume I'm playing against another experienced player also playing an alt.
When I'm playing Paragons, I rarely see genuine doofuses. They are out there, but they aren't super common. Usually I face players that are below average, but still somewhat competent. Or really good players. Or complete monsters. But I face players on my Cav alt all the time that might as well be drafting and picking randomly. They don't know how to fight Korg. They don't even know how to fight IMIW. I can place a 5* Spot on defense and its practically an automatic win. They know CapIW is good, but not *why* he's good. I would absolutely *love* to face nothing but Cavalier players using my roster. To use all my good champs against me they would have to not ban them. Which means I get to use them also. I'll take those odds any day.
I would say it's more varied than absolute. I'm pretty average I suppose as well. I'm not the worst Player, but around middle-upper. I've had success against stronger Rosters, and been beaten by lower. I think when you're talking about quite an extreme variation, like UC vs. Paragon, there's no doubt a vast difference in experience. If you're talking about everyone who is Paragon automatically better, I'd have to disagree on the basis of that generalization. Some Players are better than their Title shows. Within reason, of course.
Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
So I didn’t read all the stuff before this, but it seems to me that you are arguing in your analogy that high school players should not be complaining when they play nfl teams. That does not really make sense to me. But also in this analogy you are saying it’s harder to win a professional football game than a high school one. That is obviously true. However they are the best playing the best. There is no one else they could play and have a fair game. I don’t know. I just see you everywhere on the forums arguing with people about this. But just think of it as this. If I’m cav and I play a bad cav roster or a unc roster am I gonna complain? No. I got a free win. But for the player that had no chance of winning they are going to complain. I don’t know, I just don’t understand why you are arguing with everyone else. It is obvious that the matching is not vary fair at times. But it makes so much logical sense that players of around the same progression in the game play each other. I don’t get how that’s an argument. If you really envy what the lower players have in the matching making, which is still playing people of around their progression than make an alt or something. Going back to the analogy, if a high school player was offered to playing the nfl they would probably accept. It would be harder, but they would get paid so much more. Do you think a nfl player would want to go back to high school football? It would be easier, but the rewards would be much worse. Idk, just my take 🤷♂️
Well, I didn’t watch much American sports, besides NBA so I can’t make an analogy base on NFL. However, I will use Premier League from UK as an example. In Premier League, there are 20 teams and the top 4 teams when the season finished will eligible to play Champions League which is a continental competition. (=Gladiator Circuit) Even if you lost all matches in Champions League, just the rewards and broadcast fees you got for entering is massive and worth a lot. (get o point in Gladiator Circuit means you get URU III rewards and everything from victory track) While team finished 5th and lower can’t participate and they got nothing from Champions League because they keep playing each other. (The 5th and below may enter lower Europe competitions but the rewards are far inferior)
In lower tier than Premier League, there are Championship with 24 teams, league one, league two and etc. They need to finish the top of their league to get promotion to higher league tier next season. Premier League team have higher fan base, stronger team, they pay higher wages to the player, they invest more (=time and money to build rosters in MCOC)
The system in BG right now, they allow top teams in Championship, league one and league two or even lower to enter the Champion League (Gladiator Circuit) and got massive rewards. (because they play only teams within their own league tier, they never face team in higher leagues) While teams who finished 5th or lower in Premier League get nothing, teams in lower tiers get massive rewards just for participation and lose all matches in Champion League.
Do you think this is really fair for higher team? Similarly, you give NBA D-league team the right to play in NBA playoff while they only face other NBA D-league teams but many NBA teams doesn’t have a chance. Do you really think this system is fair? If this applied to Premier League or NBA do the teams there can accept it?
If you don’t know why 10k player vs 10k player is different than 17k vs 17k, you are not play end game contents/competitive content enough to realize it from your own experience. They have rosters to counter everything and far more experience. Lower end player just get lucky with some powerful meta champs and the opponent has no counter in all decks is enough for them to dominate the victory track. This can't be said at end game player vs each other. This can also be seen by end game players who play their alternate accounts with lower prestige and cruise to gladiator circuit.
Seem some people think if they got 17k roster too, they can beat all other 17k players because they are so good at this game while most 17k players who struck in lower tiers are just not good enough. In some cases, yes but in most cases fighting other end game players are not the same. I really want Kabam to make the BG with just 2* just 3* or just 4* or make everyone can borrow any max champs to build rosters so that everyone has the same roster strength and see how the BG go. This type of BG can prove how this is a false perception. Requiring end game players to play other 17k player since Bronze III is ridiculous.
Well, I didn’t watch much American sports, besides NBA so I can’t make an analogy base on NFL. However, I will use Premier League from UK as an example. In Premier League, there are 20 teams and the top 4 teams when the season finished will eligible to play Champions League which is a continental competition. (=Gladiator Circuit) Even if you lost all matches in Champions League, just the rewards and broadcast fees you got for entering is massive and worth a lot. (get o point in Gladiator Circuit means you get URU III rewards and everything from victory track) While team finished 5th and lower can’t participate and they got nothing from Champions League because they keep playing each other. (The 5th and below may enter lower Europe competitions but the rewards are far inferior)
In lower tier than Premier League, there are Championship with 24 teams, league one, league two and etc. They need to finish the top of their league to get promotion to higher league tier next season. Premier League team have higher fan base, stronger team, they pay higher wages to the player, they invest more (=time and money to build rosters in MCOC)
The system in BG right now, they allow top teams in Championship, league one and league two or even lower to enter the Champion League (Gladiator Circuit) and got massive rewards. (because they play only teams within their own league tier, they never face team in higher leagues) While teams who finished 5th or lower in Premier League get nothing, teams in lower tiers get massive rewards just for participation and lose all matches in Champion League.
Do you think this is really fair for higher team? Similarly, you give NBA D-league team the right to play in NBA playoff while they only face other NBA D-league teams but many NBA teams doesn’t have a chance. Do you really think this system is fair? If this applied to Premier League or NBA do the teams there can accept it?
If you don’t know why 10k player vs 10k player is different than 17k vs 17k, you are not play end game contents/competitive content enough to realize it from your own experience. They have rosters to counter everything and far more experience. Lower end player just get lucky with some powerful meta champs and the opponent has no counter in all decks is enough for them to dominate the victory track. This can't be said at end game player vs each other. This can also be seen by end game players who play their alternate accounts with lower prestige and cruise to gladiator circuit.
Seem some people think if they got 17k roster too, they can beat all other 17k players because they are so good at this game while most 17k players who struck in lower tiers are just not good enough. In some cases, yes but in most cases fighting other end game players are not the same. I really want Kabam to make the BG with just 2* just 3* or just 4* or make everyone can borrow any max champs to build rosters so that everyone has the same roster strength and see how the BG go. This type of BG can prove how this is a false perception. Requiring end game players to play other 17k player since Bronze III is ridiculous.
This makes sense. Not trying to disagree with you, but I don’t really see to much why the high level players are complaining about the lower level players. I get it, but I don’t think it’s that much or complain about. Like, as of now the matchmaking when you get in platinum changes to anyone in that teir can play. So paragon vs cav or whatever. So the low level players aren’t getting to gc. And also most of the rewards they earn along the way are relic stuff which really isn’t that great, and the stuff for the store. And if you’re unc, you can get anything really except for 5* shards from the store. So it’s not really like they are earning anything that great and the stuff that they are earning in going to growing their accounts which will then add to the high level players. I don’t know much about the England football system, but most pro sport leagues have like a developmental league or something below them to produce more players to play in their league. Idk, I kind of see it like that. But I see where you’re coming from, it’s gotta be pretty frustrating to be a paragon stuck in bronze and see cav players in platinum. But it’s also kinda frustrating for cav players to get to platinum and then having no chance to progress. I think what you said is actually a really good idea. To have everyone borrow max strength champs in a deck. If you ever played clash royal and played like triple draft, if it was like that it would be amazing. I feel like this would make it so much more fair. It would make battlegrounds a place where it’s how good you are, not how good your champs are. I feel like there would still need to be some slight matchmaking, because of if a paragon went against a unc player, they would have the same champs, but the skill and knowledge level would be pretty different. If kabam change battlegrounds to this, I think it would actually be fun for everyone.
Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
What dont you get? If you cant understand something as simple as that then there is no hope for you i even dumbed it down, the point was that a uc fighting a equal match against a uc is just as difficult as a paragon fighting a equal match against a paragon something you'd understand if your mind wasnt on one track, you keep replying saying "wrong" and "that is a fact" but someone who can only ever think of themselves can never be right.
Your argument makes so little sense that "wrong" is all that needs to be said.
In no world is an "equal" UC match nearly as difficult as an "equal" Paragon match. That's just a fact.
What you're arguing dosent make any sense the difficulty of the match depends on the players ability to combat it you must be forgetting in the situation of a equal paragon match both players are paragon they would have the skill set and roster to combat the other player
The better your opponent the lower margin of error there is. 50k points in a match for an 10k players is basically a guaranteed win. 50k points for an 17k player is often a loss.
Also, no one answered my question of how many 5/65 5* sig 200 Korgs are being used because it totally blew up their argument.
The same argument could be made for a Sig 200 5* Korg against another 5*. Which is easier to come by than a 6*. Close Matches exist althroughout the competition. There is no metric or measurement in the scoring that accounts for that. It's the same scoring mechanism for everyone. Now, I'm sure there may be some argument for Rewards that are appropriate to where a Player is at, but I find the claim that the Fights are vastly superior to be lacking perspective. What Players are using to come up against them is stronger as well. I'd even wager if you gave lower Players the larger Roster and the stronger Matches, their success wouldn't be that different. What the main point here is a rite of passage as it were.
Sig 200 5* Korgs aren't a real thing in mid-level BGs.
And the bolded is laughable. That's like saying if you used Tiger Woods' clubs you'd shoot under par or Alex Ovechkin's hockey stick you could score 50 goals a season in the NHL.
Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
So I didn’t read all the stuff before this, but it seems to me that you are arguing in your analogy that high school players should not be complaining when they play nfl teams. That does not really make sense to me. But also in this analogy you are saying it’s harder to win a professional football game than a high school one. That is obviously true. However they are the best playing the best. There is no one else they could play and have a fair game. I don’t know. I just see you everywhere on the forums arguing with people about this. But just think of it as this. If I’m cav and I play a bad cav roster or a unc roster am I gonna complain? No. I got a free win. But for the player that had no chance of winning they are going to complain. I don’t know, I just don’t understand why you are arguing with everyone else. It is obvious that the matching is not vary fair at times. But it makes so much logical sense that players of around the same progression in the game play each other. I don’t get how that’s an argument. If you really envy what the lower players have in the matching making, which is still playing people of around their progression than make an alt or something. Going back to the analogy, if a high school player was offered to playing the nfl they would probably accept. It would be harder, but they would get paid so much more. Do you think a nfl player would want to go back to high school football? It would be easier, but the rewards would be much worse. Idk, just my take 🤷♂️
Wrong.
You need to re-read the discussion again. He was arguing that winning an HS game was just ad difficult as winning an NFL game. The whole issue is people not accepting that a Paragon v Paragon match is exponentially harder than a Cav vs Cav or UC vs UC.
And nowhere have I said that I want to play lower accounts. That's just something you made up to argue against.
No one complains when their are an uncollected player in a Plat 3 alliance going up against paragon R5 defenders... because... they are in the same tier.
Why do people keep complaining about this... if you are both in silver 2 plat 2, or gamma 2... you should be going against players in the same tier (plus or minus one in later tiers due to how few players there are / needing to wait forever otherwise for matchmaking). You should be proud that you got there, not complain that other players who have stronger rosters got there too and now you are stuck facing them.
Well, I didn’t watch much American sports, besides NBA so I can’t make an analogy base on NFL. However, I will use Premier League from UK as an example. In Premier League, there are 20 teams and the top 4 teams when the season finished will eligible to play Champions League which is a continental competition. (=Gladiator Circuit) Even if you lost all matches in Champions League, just the rewards and broadcast fees you got for entering is massive and worth a lot. (get o point in Gladiator Circuit means you get URU III rewards and everything from victory track) While team finished 5th and lower can’t participate and they got nothing from Champions League because they keep playing each other. (The 5th and below may enter lower Europe competitions but the rewards are far inferior)
In lower tier than Premier League, there are Championship with 24 teams, league one, league two and etc. They need to finish the top of their league to get promotion to higher league tier next season. Premier League team have higher fan base, stronger team, they pay higher wages to the player, they invest more (=time and money to build rosters in MCOC)
The system in BG right now, they allow top teams in Championship, league one and league two or even lower to enter the Champion League (Gladiator Circuit) and got massive rewards. (because they play only teams within their own league tier, they never face team in higher leagues) While teams who finished 5th or lower in Premier League get nothing, teams in lower tiers get massive rewards just for participation and lose all matches in Champion League.
Do you think this is really fair for higher team? Similarly, you give NBA D-league team the right to play in NBA playoff while they only face other NBA D-league teams but many NBA teams doesn’t have a chance. Do you really think this system is fair? If this applied to Premier League or NBA do the teams there can accept it?
If you don’t know why 10k player vs 10k player is different than 17k vs 17k, you are not play end game contents/competitive content enough to realize it from your own experience. They have rosters to counter everything and far more experience. Lower end player just get lucky with some powerful meta champs and the opponent has no counter in all decks is enough for them to dominate the victory track. This can't be said at end game player vs each other. This can also be seen by end game players who play their alternate accounts with lower prestige and cruise to gladiator circuit.
Seem some people think if they got 17k roster too, they can beat all other 17k players because they are so good at this game while most 17k players who struck in lower tiers are just not good enough. In some cases, yes but in most cases fighting other end game players are not the same. I really want Kabam to make the BG with just 2* just 3* or just 4* or make everyone can borrow any max champs to build rosters so that everyone has the same roster strength and see how the BG go. This type of BG can prove how this is a false perception. Requiring end game players to play other 17k player since Bronze III is ridiculous.
This makes sense. Not trying to disagree with you, but I don’t really see to much why the high level players are complaining about the lower level players. I get it, but I don’t think it’s that much or complain about. Like, as of now the matchmaking when you get in platinum changes to anyone in that teir can play. So paragon vs cav or whatever. So the low level players aren’t getting to gc. And also most of the rewards they earn along the way are relic stuff which really isn’t that great, and the stuff for the store. And if you’re unc, you can get anything really except for 5* shards from the store. So it’s not really like they are earning anything that great and the stuff that they are earning in going to growing their accounts which will then add to the high level players. I don’t know much about the England football system, but most pro sport leagues have like a developmental league or something below them to produce more players to play in their league. Idk, I kind of see it like that. But I see where you’re coming from, it’s gotta be pretty frustrating to be a paragon stuck in bronze and see cav players in platinum. But it’s also kinda frustrating for cav players to get to platinum and then having no chance to progress. I think what you said is actually a really good idea. To have everyone borrow max strength champs in a deck. If you ever played clash royal and played like triple draft, if it was like that it would be amazing. I feel like this would make it so much more fair. It would make battlegrounds a place where it’s how good you are, not how good your champs are. I feel like there would still need to be some slight matchmaking, because of if a paragon went against a unc player, they would have the same champs, but the skill and knowledge level would be pretty different. If kabam change battlegrounds to this, I think it would actually be fun for everyone.
Because in every other competition ever, the better teams earn the best rewards. Low players get a free ride to Plat (earning all the rewards along the way, which are a lot) then come to complain how they can't win a match once they don't get the matchmaking anymore. That's just proof that they don't belong there.
On the other hand, you have 17k accounts stuck in Silver and Gold because they're only fighting other 17k players.
Alliance war does not gate rewards by progression. You get the same shards, rank-up materials etc. as others in your tier, irrespective of progression title. There is also some flexibility, such as weaker alliances can put up more points by running more BGs than alliances with stronger players. If rewards were gated, participation in wars would be far lower.
Ugh, you totally missed the point.
AW locks allys into their tiers between seasons and gives higher tired allys a higher multiplier for their points.
You clearly don't remember when they ran AW like BGs and how much of a disaster it was.
Yes. And if AW further gated rewards by progression, you would see AW participation decline.
Even now if you around lower levels of gold, AW participation makes no sense for most players. And AW thresholds for rewards is very low (5 wars a season, place def). There are so many alliances playing tier 6-7 wars but still struggle to fill 2 BGs because they can't get enough people interested in the mode even with bare minimum thresholds and unlimited revives.
BG is heading towards AW type setting. Where a higher accounts will get calcified at the top and everyone else will have to scrape for meagre rewards. But unlike AW, this will be further gated by progression.
To refresh, G3 in AW is top 4500 alliances - that's probably around 100k players. If you end up with the same participation in BG that would mean a ~50% decline from now. Think about what it means finding matches and relevance of the game mode in a few seasons.
You may think it makes sense to have a Paragon exclusive BG mode, but I don't believe there are enough Paragons to sustain it. It'll go the way incursions did and so will the rewards/resources that come with it.
You might be ok with this, since you got yours and your main aim seems to be to keep lower progression account getting anything of value. But I would rather see BG as an successful mode with vibrant participation, even if it means spreading the rewards in a more egalitarian way.
No one complains when their are an uncollected player in a Plat 3 alliance going up against paragon R5 defenders... because... they are in the same tier.
Why do people keep complaining about this... if you are both in silver 2 plat 2, or gamma 2... you should be going against players in the same tier (plus or minus one in later tiers due to how few players there are / needing to wait forever otherwise for matchmaking). You should be proud that you got there, not complain that other players who have stronger rosters got there too and now you are stuck facing them.
Because the uncollected player in Plat 3 gets the same rewards/resources at the end of the season as everyone else in the alliance.
I get @DNA3000 's point about gating rewards by progression to some extent. But it feels unfair when facing higher rosters knowing that even if you win your rewards are truncated. Rewards of a match should be same whoever wins.
Alliance war does not gate rewards by progression. You get the same shards, rank-up materials etc. as others in your tier, irrespective of progression title. There is also some flexibility, such as weaker alliances can put up more points by running more BGs than alliances with stronger players. If rewards were gated, participation in wars would be far lower.
Ugh, you totally missed the point.
AW locks allys into their tiers between seasons and gives higher tired allys a higher multiplier for their points.
You clearly don't remember when they ran AW like BGs and how much of a disaster it was.
Yes. And if AW further gated rewards by progression, you would see AW participation decline.
Even now if you around lower levels of gold, AW participation makes no sense for most players. And AW thresholds for rewards is very low (5 wars a season, place def). There are so many alliances playing tier 6-7 wars but still struggle to fill 2 BGs because they can't get enough people interested in the mode even with bare minimum thresholds and unlimited revives.
BG is heading towards AW type setting. Where a higher accounts will get calcified at the top and everyone else will have to scrape for meagre rewards. But unlike AW, this will be further gated by progression.
To refresh, G3 in AW is top 4500 alliances - that's probably around 100k players. If you end up with the same participation in BG that would mean a ~50% decline from now. Think about what it means finding matches and relevance of the game mode in a few seasons.
You may think it makes sense to have a Paragon exclusive BG mode, but I don't believe there are enough Paragons to sustain it. It'll go the way incursions did and so will the rewards/resources that come with it.
You might be ok with this, since you got yours and your main aim seems to be to keep lower progression account getting anything of value. But I would rather see BG as an successful mode with vibrant participation, even if it means spreading the rewards in a more egalitarian way.
Wrong.
You can play as many matches as you want in a BG season as opposed to 12 in an AW season, so anyone can climb to the top levels...as long as they have the roster and skill to do so. There are no BG multipliers keeping people down so anyone with the talent to climb can do so.
And players being in their correct tiers, meaning that they earn the appropriate rewards from playing, will increase participation from higher players.
No one complains when their are an uncollected player in a Plat 3 alliance going up against paragon R5 defenders... because... they are in the same tier.
Why do people keep complaining about this... if you are both in silver 2 plat 2, or gamma 2... you should be going against players in the same tier (plus or minus one in later tiers due to how few players there are / needing to wait forever otherwise for matchmaking). You should be proud that you got there, not complain that other players who have stronger rosters got there too and now you are stuck facing them.
Because the uncollected player in Plat 3 gets the same rewards/resources at the end of the season as everyone else in the alliance.
I get @DNA3000 's point about gating rewards by progression to some extent. But it feels unfair when facing higher rosters knowing that even if you win your rewards are truncated. Rewards of a match should be same whoever wins.
Should BG store be the same price for everyone? Yes. However, Kabam needs a way to get people to invest (money, time, in-game resources) in becoming Paragon for revenue and game upkeep. It's a better way than most other mobile games AFAIK.
On the other hand, you have 17k accounts stuck in Silver and Gold because they're only fighting other 17k players.
I don't know how true this part is. Matchmaking isn't so precise or locked on, my understanding was it works in a range. Given that 10-15K accounts are all being matched with higher strength rosters, how is it possible that 17K rosters only play other 17K rosters?
I would think higher you go, eventually you have to get matched with mostly lower strength rosters right? Because there aren't any higher ones available.
I am not trying to belittle the struggle 17K rosters are facing. I agree higher strength rosters on average have a tougher path to progress. Just trying to understand why they don't get any 14/15/16K prestige players.
@all of you are missing the point though that a 14K prestige 1.5mil paragon matching with a 16K+ prestige 4mil paragon is COMPLETELY different than a 10K 800K UC matching with a 12K 1mil Cav player. the rosters are going to be fairly comparable and the best skill will win.
On the other hand, you have 17k accounts stuck in Silver and Gold because they're only fighting other 17k players.
I don't know how true this part is. Matchmaking isn't so precise or locked on, my understanding was it works in a range. Given that 10-15K accounts are all being matched with higher strength rosters, how is it possible that 17K rosters only play other 17K rosters?
I would think higher you go, eventually you have to get matched with mostly lower strength rosters right? Because there aren't any higher ones available.
I am not trying to belittle the struggle 17K rosters are facing. I agree higher strength rosters on average have a tougher path to progress. Just trying to understand why they don't get any 14/15/16K prestige players.
Ugh, it's not a theory it's the reality of the game mode. You're talking about your perceived theories, we're talking about our actual in-game experiences.
All that matters is that Kabam already said... If u were UC/Cav climbing in VT its gonna be harder.. and work on your progression... Which pretty much means.. U won't have easy rides anymore
On the other hand, you have 17k accounts stuck in Silver and Gold because they're only fighting other 17k players.
I don't know how true this part is. Matchmaking isn't so precise or locked on, my understanding was it works in a range. Given that 10-15K accounts are all being matched with higher strength rosters, how is it possible that 17K rosters only play other 17K rosters?
I would think higher you go, eventually you have to get matched with mostly lower strength rosters right? Because there aren't any higher ones available.
I am not trying to belittle the struggle 17K rosters are facing. I agree higher strength rosters on average have a tougher path to progress. Just trying to understand why they don't get any 14/15/16K prestige players.
Based on what we saw last season, in bronze and silver, the game was hard-core matchmaking you with people of very similar roster strength (pretty much top 30 champions). However, those restrictions start loosening up a bit the higher you go until they no longer exist in platinum.
Doing this allows weak players to not be crushed from the starting line while also not allowing them a "free ride" to GC.
Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
What dont you get? If you cant understand something as simple as that then there is no hope for you i even dumbed it down, the point was that a uc fighting a equal match against a uc is just as difficult as a paragon fighting a equal match against a paragon something you'd understand if your mind wasnt on one track, you keep replying saying "wrong" and "that is a fact" but someone who can only ever think of themselves can never be right.
Your argument makes so little sense that "wrong" is all that needs to be said.
In no world is an "equal" UC match nearly as difficult as an "equal" Paragon match. That's just a fact.
What you're arguing dosent make any sense the difficulty of the match depends on the players ability to combat it you must be forgetting in the situation of a equal paragon match both players are paragon they would have the skill set and roster to combat the other player
The better your opponent the lower margin of error there is. 50k points in a match for an 10k players is basically a guaranteed win. 50k points for an 17k player is often a loss.
Also, no one answered my question of how many 5/65 5* sig 200 Korgs are being used because it totally blew up their argument.
The same argument could be made for a Sig 200 5* Korg against another 5*. Which is easier to come by than a 6*. Close Matches exist althroughout the competition. There is no metric or measurement in the scoring that accounts for that. It's the same scoring mechanism for everyone. Now, I'm sure there may be some argument for Rewards that are appropriate to where a Player is at, but I find the claim that the Fights are vastly superior to be lacking perspective. What Players are using to come up against them is stronger as well. I'd even wager if you gave lower Players the larger Roster and the stronger Matches, their success wouldn't be that different. What the main point here is a rite of passage as it were.
Sig 200 5* Korgs aren't a real thing in mid-level BGs.
And the bolded is laughable. That's like saying if you used Tiger Woods' clubs you'd shoot under par or Alex Ovechkin's hockey stick you could score 50 goals a season in the NHL.
You know what the difference between TB and Paragon is? Complete Act 7, and have 3 R3s. That's it. If you're convinced the Title automatically makes someone better then you're not being reasonable. You can't assume why everyone hasn't done it.
Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
What dont you get? If you cant understand something as simple as that then there is no hope for you i even dumbed it down, the point was that a uc fighting a equal match against a uc is just as difficult as a paragon fighting a equal match against a paragon something you'd understand if your mind wasnt on one track, you keep replying saying "wrong" and "that is a fact" but someone who can only ever think of themselves can never be right.
Your argument makes so little sense that "wrong" is all that needs to be said.
In no world is an "equal" UC match nearly as difficult as an "equal" Paragon match. That's just a fact.
What you're arguing dosent make any sense the difficulty of the match depends on the players ability to combat it you must be forgetting in the situation of a equal paragon match both players are paragon they would have the skill set and roster to combat the other player
The better your opponent the lower margin of error there is. 50k points in a match for an 10k players is basically a guaranteed win. 50k points for an 17k player is often a loss.
Also, no one answered my question of how many 5/65 5* sig 200 Korgs are being used because it totally blew up their argument.
The same argument could be made for a Sig 200 5* Korg against another 5*. Which is easier to come by than a 6*. Close Matches exist althroughout the competition. There is no metric or measurement in the scoring that accounts for that. It's the same scoring mechanism for everyone. Now, I'm sure there may be some argument for Rewards that are appropriate to where a Player is at, but I find the claim that the Fights are vastly superior to be lacking perspective. What Players are using to come up against them is stronger as well. I'd even wager if you gave lower Players the larger Roster and the stronger Matches, their success wouldn't be that different. What the main point here is a rite of passage as it were.
Sig 200 5* Korgs aren't a real thing in mid-level BGs.
And the bolded is laughable. That's like saying if you used Tiger Woods' clubs you'd shoot under par or Alex Ovechkin's hockey stick you could score 50 goals a season in the NHL.
You know what the difference between TB and Paragon is? Complete Act 7, and have 3 R3s. That's it. If you're convinced the Title automatically makes someone better then you're not being reasonable. You can't assume why everyone hasn't done it.
This argument his hilarious when u see UC with 6* and Cavs with R3s ...
Actually thats where u are wrong... Look at every Side quest or SOLO event thay had a currency as reward other than BG... Lower progressions always earn less and paid more... BG is the only one that had same milestone rewards, same objective rewards and same tier climb rewards for all progressions and the only difference is the store... If u r UC u r 3 progressions levels behind.. doesnt even make sense u r competing or playing against Paragons for rewards...
SQ paid less if you did lower difficulty, same difficulty gives the same amount of currency - complete threat level 5, you get threat level 5 rewards. In BG, difficulty is relative. A 10K roster vs. 10K roster is almost the same difficulty as 17k v 17k.
10K vs 17K is very easy for a 17K roster and almost impossible for a 10K roster. It's an EOP level match for the 10K and may threat level 2 for the 17K. The 10K players can play flawlessly 100% health, the most ideal rotation etc. and 9 out of 10 times they will still lose because the other match got over sooner. Conversely, the 17k player can take many hits, mess up a few times and will still win almost every one of those match-ups. But you want 17K to get top end rewards for doing this and 10K to get something worthless.
UC is competing with UC to get currency to buy UC rewards. Paragons and doing the same.
This is so unequivocally wrong that it's almost not worth discussing.
Why is it wrong? The result of a BG round is based on the relative results of the two fights in the round. A 6r4 has ~50% more attack and HP as compared to a 5r5 of the same champ.
Imagine a 5r5 roster facing off against an similar 5r5 roster - maybe they need 30 hits to K.O the defender, their opponents also need to land a similar number of hits in a similar amount of time to win the match.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against an equal 6r4 roster, the math is largely the same. Since HP and attack increases are almost equal.
When a 6r4 roster faces off against the same 5r5 roster - with a 6r4 champ you only need 20 hits to down the defender. On the other side, the 5r5 needs 45 hits to down the 6r4 defender. Even if the 5r5 plays a perfect game, there is very little chance that they win the match since the room for error with a 6r4 is so much more.
If you wants rewards at your progression level, you should at least be willing to face opponents at your progression level. Picking on teams with 2x handicaps to rake in rewards is not the Paragon thing to do.
The 10K roster who has progressed hasn't played any easier games than you did to get to your level. Because BG matches are relative not absolute.
Is winning a high school football game just as difficult as winning an NFL game?
Yes... it is higher level of play dosent mean higher difficulty imagine you have 2 high grade machines pushing at each other both of them applying 50 pounds of force vs 2 low grade machines the each only apply 20 pounds of force the struggle on boths sides is equal
Wrong.
What even is your example? Pounds of force? How does that apply to a sport?
It truly is shocking how many people think that winning a pro game is the same as an HS game. It really shows why so many don't grasp the reality of what Paragons are going through in the VT.
What dont you get? If you cant understand something as simple as that then there is no hope for you i even dumbed it down, the point was that a uc fighting a equal match against a uc is just as difficult as a paragon fighting a equal match against a paragon something you'd understand if your mind wasnt on one track, you keep replying saying "wrong" and "that is a fact" but someone who can only ever think of themselves can never be right.
Your argument makes so little sense that "wrong" is all that needs to be said.
In no world is an "equal" UC match nearly as difficult as an "equal" Paragon match. That's just a fact.
What you're arguing dosent make any sense the difficulty of the match depends on the players ability to combat it you must be forgetting in the situation of a equal paragon match both players are paragon they would have the skill set and roster to combat the other player
The better your opponent the lower margin of error there is. 50k points in a match for an 10k players is basically a guaranteed win. 50k points for an 17k player is often a loss.
Also, no one answered my question of how many 5/65 5* sig 200 Korgs are being used because it totally blew up their argument.
The same argument could be made for a Sig 200 5* Korg against another 5*. Which is easier to come by than a 6*. Close Matches exist althroughout the competition. There is no metric or measurement in the scoring that accounts for that. It's the same scoring mechanism for everyone. Now, I'm sure there may be some argument for Rewards that are appropriate to where a Player is at, but I find the claim that the Fights are vastly superior to be lacking perspective. What Players are using to come up against them is stronger as well. I'd even wager if you gave lower Players the larger Roster and the stronger Matches, their success wouldn't be that different. What the main point here is a rite of passage as it were.
Sig 200 5* Korgs aren't a real thing in mid-level BGs.
And the bolded is laughable. That's like saying if you used Tiger Woods' clubs you'd shoot under par or Alex Ovechkin's hockey stick you could score 50 goals a season in the NHL.
You know what the difference between TB and Paragon is? Complete Act 7, and have 3 R3s. That's it. If you're convinced the Title automatically makes someone better then you're not being reasonable. You can't assume why everyone hasn't done it.
This argument his hilarious when u see UC with 6* and Cavs with R3s ...
What's hilarious is the argument that Roster should play no factor in the Matches, and yet people still use that to make generalizations about Players.
Comments
However, when alliance rewards are not in the form of direct rewards but rather intermediate currency, even alliance rewards are gated by progress. The loyalty store is gated by progress. The glory store is gated by progress. The difference between alliance war and alliance quest and battlegrounds are not examples of Kabam decided to sometimes gate and sometimes not gate rewards. They are due mostly to historical differences in when those game modes were created and the practical limitations that existed at the time, and the fact that Kabam's perspective on alliance rewards itself has shifted over time for those modes.
There's also the fact that historically, alliances were far more homogenous than they are now. It was (and still is to some degree) extremely difficult to manage an AW alliance with a wide disparity in player strength, because that would have placed a huge cost burden on the weaker players. Similarly, it would have been extremely difficult to manage a wide disparity in player strength in an AQ focused alliance, because once upon a time everyone had to be running the same map. Doling out rewards gated to progress, when there were far fewer progression tiers and most alliance had most members relatively close together was not seen as necessary. But Battlegrounds allows players across four widely spaced progression tiers participate in the same collection of competitors. Not gating rewards by progress would be insane.
AW locks allys into their tiers between seasons and gives higher tired allys a higher multiplier for their points.
You clearly don't remember when they ran AW like BGs and how much of a disaster it was.
Also, no one answered my question of how many 5/65 5* sig 200 Korgs are being used because it totally blew up their argument.
Now, I'm sure there may be some argument for Rewards that are appropriate to where a Player is at, but I find the claim that the Fights are vastly superior to be lacking perspective. What Players are using to come up against them is stronger as well. I'd even wager if you gave lower Players the larger Roster and the stronger Matches, their success wouldn't be that different.
What the main point here is a rite of passage as it were.
There are four main contributors to the competitive strength of a player. Roster strength is one. Champion and Mechanical knowledge is the second (how the champs work, how the nodes work, etc). Combat experience is the third: specific experience that tells them what will work in which situations across all the different match ups and nodes you're going to experience. And twitch skill is the fourth: how dexterous the player is in actually playing the fights.
All other things being equal, the longer a player has played the game, the more likely it is they will have more of all four, and especially the middle two. You can remove one, like roster strength, but you will still leave the other three behind. I am at best a 50/50 player vs other players of similar progress and roster strength (in fact, I probably win closer to 40% of my matches). However, put me up against Cavalier players with equal rosters and my win percentage rises to over 80%. My twitch skills are probably average even against most Cavalier players, but my knowledge and experience vastly outweighs even the stronger Cavalier players. Most of the time when I'm playing BG on my Cav alt, I've won the match in the draft phase before the fighting starts. So much so that when I see someone drafting properly when playing my Cav alt, I assume I'm playing against another experienced player also playing an alt.
When I'm playing Paragons, I rarely see genuine doofuses. They are out there, but they aren't super common. Usually I face players that are below average, but still somewhat competent. Or really good players. Or complete monsters. But I face players on my Cav alt all the time that might as well be drafting and picking randomly. They don't know how to fight Korg. They don't even know how to fight IMIW. I can place a 5* Spot on defense and its practically an automatic win. They know CapIW is good, but not *why* he's good. I would absolutely *love* to face nothing but Cavalier players using my roster. To use all my good champs against me they would have to not ban them. Which means I get to use them also. I'll take those odds any day.
So I didn’t read all the stuff before this, but it seems to me that you are arguing in your analogy that high school players should not be complaining when they play nfl teams. That does not really make sense to me. But also in this analogy you are saying it’s harder to win a professional football game than a high school one. That is obviously true. However they are the best playing the best. There is no one else they could play and have a fair game. I don’t know. I just see you everywhere on the forums arguing with people about this. But just think of it as this. If I’m cav and I play a bad cav roster or a unc roster am I gonna complain? No. I got a free win. But for the player that had no chance of winning they are going to complain. I don’t know, I just don’t understand why you are arguing with everyone else. It is obvious that the matching is not vary fair at times. But it makes so much logical sense that players of around the same progression in the game play each other. I don’t get how that’s an argument. If you really envy what the lower players have in the matching making, which is still playing people of around their progression than make an alt or something. Going back to the analogy, if a high school player was offered to playing the nfl they would probably accept. It would be harder, but they would get paid so much more. Do you think a nfl player would want to go back to high school football? It would be easier, but the rewards would be much worse. Idk, just my take 🤷♂️
In lower tier than Premier League, there are Championship with 24 teams, league one, league two and etc. They need to finish the top of their league to get promotion to higher league tier next season.
Premier League team have higher fan base, stronger team, they pay higher wages to the player, they invest more (=time and money to build rosters in MCOC)
The system in BG right now, they allow top teams in Championship, league one and league two or even lower to enter the Champion League (Gladiator Circuit) and got massive rewards. (because they play only teams within their own league tier, they never face team in higher leagues) While teams who finished 5th or lower in Premier League get nothing, teams in lower tiers get massive rewards just for participation and lose all matches in Champion League.
Do you think this is really fair for higher team? Similarly, you give NBA D-league team the right to play in NBA playoff while they only face other NBA D-league teams but many NBA teams doesn’t have a chance. Do you really think this system is fair? If this applied to Premier League or NBA do the teams there can accept it?
If you don’t know why 10k player vs 10k player is different than 17k vs 17k, you are not play end game contents/competitive content enough to realize it from your own experience. They have rosters to counter everything and far more experience. Lower end player just get lucky with some powerful meta champs and the opponent has no counter in all decks is enough for them to dominate the victory track. This can't be said at end game player vs each other. This can also be seen by end game players who play their alternate accounts with lower prestige and cruise to gladiator circuit.
Seem some people think if they got 17k roster too, they can beat all other 17k players because they are so good at this game while most 17k players who struck in lower tiers are just not good enough. In some cases, yes but in most cases fighting other end game players are not the same. I really want Kabam to make the BG with just 2* just 3* or just 4* or make everyone can borrow any max champs to build rosters so that everyone has the same roster strength and see how the BG go. This type of BG can prove how this is a false perception. Requiring end game players to play other 17k player since Bronze III is ridiculous.
And the bolded is laughable. That's like saying if you used Tiger Woods' clubs you'd shoot under par or Alex Ovechkin's hockey stick you could score 50 goals a season in the NHL.
You need to re-read the discussion again. He was arguing that winning an HS game was just ad difficult as winning an NFL game. The whole issue is people not accepting that a Paragon v Paragon match is exponentially harder than a Cav vs Cav or UC vs UC.
And nowhere have I said that I want to play lower accounts. That's just something you made up to argue against.
Why do people keep complaining about this... if you are both in silver 2 plat 2, or gamma 2... you should be going against players in the same tier (plus or minus one in later tiers due to how few players there are / needing to wait forever otherwise for matchmaking). You should be proud that you got there, not complain that other players who have stronger rosters got there too and now you are stuck facing them.
On the other hand, you have 17k accounts stuck in Silver and Gold because they're only fighting other 17k players.
It really isn't hard to understand.
Even now if you around lower levels of gold, AW participation makes no sense for most players. And AW thresholds for rewards is very low (5 wars a season, place def). There are so many alliances playing tier 6-7 wars but still struggle to fill 2 BGs because they can't get enough people interested in the mode even with bare minimum thresholds and unlimited revives.
BG is heading towards AW type setting. Where a higher accounts will get calcified at the top and everyone else will have to scrape for meagre rewards. But unlike AW, this will be further gated by progression.
To refresh, G3 in AW is top 4500 alliances - that's probably around 100k players. If you end up with the same participation in BG that would mean a ~50% decline from now. Think about what it means finding matches and relevance of the game mode in a few seasons.
You may think it makes sense to have a Paragon exclusive BG mode, but I don't believe there are enough Paragons to sustain it. It'll go the way incursions did and so will the rewards/resources that come with it.
You might be ok with this, since you got yours and your main aim seems to be to keep lower progression account getting anything of value. But I would rather see BG as an successful mode with vibrant participation, even if it means spreading the rewards in a more egalitarian way.
I get @DNA3000 's point about gating rewards by progression to some extent. But it feels unfair when facing higher rosters knowing that even if you win your rewards are truncated. Rewards of a match should be same whoever wins.
You can play as many matches as you want in a BG season as opposed to 12 in an AW season, so anyone can climb to the top levels...as long as they have the roster and skill to do so. There are no BG multipliers keeping people down so anyone with the talent to climb can do so.
And players being in their correct tiers, meaning that they earn the appropriate rewards from playing, will increase participation from higher players.
I would think higher you go, eventually you have to get matched with mostly lower strength rosters right? Because there aren't any higher ones available.
I am not trying to belittle the struggle 17K rosters are facing. I agree higher strength rosters on average have a tougher path to progress. Just trying to understand why they don't get any 14/15/16K prestige players.
If u were UC/Cav climbing in VT its gonna be harder.. and work on your progression...
Which pretty much means.. U won't have easy rides anymore
Doing this allows weak players to not be crushed from the starting line while also not allowing them a "free ride" to GC.