You have to increase your roster to raise your title so roster size is directly relates to your roster size.
Prestige is only 5 champs so if you do the content and r4 3 champs you can easily raise your prestige drastically by doing the story content and raising your title.
Hoarding is the name of the game. If you choose to blow all your tokens in an overpriced store (which is the whole F'n argument if you've forgotten) then that's up to you. My point is that it's not hard to raise your title to lower the price if you want to be smart with your resources.
You are the one who made the claim that one can UC to Paragon in a week. If you can do that, it makes no sense to stay UC for 3-4 months to hoard tokens, while also losing out on a ton of other rewards available only to Paragons.
Hoarding might be the name of the game, Paragons can hoard too (like you have claimed you were doing when store changes were announced). That is not the same as camping at lower levels.
Story progression doesn't impact matchmaking, only roster strength does (and much broader view than just prestige). One doesn't get matched with people at same progression level, they get matched with players with similar rosters. If there is a UC with 9-11K roster and a Paragon with 11-13K, they are getting matched with each other. Nobody is camping at UC to hoard tokens, that is a extremely suboptimal strategy.
honestly, this is quite a pointless back and forth. Currently, as it now stands, it seems it is roster matching to plat, then free for all. Which is quite a good compromise.
Yes, eventually you're going to plateau. Been stuck in D2 for days. I don't know whether it's me, or Masochism, or the AI, or the Matches, or a combination of things. It is what it is. I'll either advance or not. I get the frustration though.
Years after its release, Hearthstone's Ranked was changed to "help players progress in the ladder without having to grind as much, while still making most matches fair." Battlegrounds can learn from this.
Or, they can implement ranked seasonal restarts, which tackles similar problems in a different way and Kabam has stated they are already working on.
Here's an interesting question: why did Heathstone use the match system they did for so long? Is Kabam ten times smarter than Hearthstone's developers for tackling similar issues that much faster?
How familiar are you with Hearthstone between 2013 and 2020?
I have time in on both newer MCOC and older Hearthstone. In addition to my "thing" as a designer. So I'm bringing in some measure of context in my review of these matters.
So, depending on your knowledge of HS, I can either just jump into the middle of it if you know older HS well, or I can ease into it slowly and with added notes if you don't know older HS well.
You are recommending another game's match system as an example to follow, but you are unaware of the fact that one of Hearthstones' primary reasons for the changes was the long term effects of rank restarts in their own system (an issue they themselves call out in their change notes) or the fact that Kabam has already announced plans to restart players in successive seasons at higher VT tiers to better preserve the ladder structure of VT? If you are going to suggest technical recommendations borrowed from other games, this feels to me like a minimum prerequisite.
Every season, all players start at the bottom of the VT, leading to a gigantic mismatched pool of Summoners and a long grind for those who play for the Gladiator’s Circuit every month. To address this, our plan is to seed players to start the season. We are working on a system that will allow us to seed players based on where they finished the season before. We also need tech that will allow Summoners to earn the rewards for the VT ranks below where they are seeded. Both of these tech solutions are being worked on right now, but we don’t currently have an ETA. It will not be for at least a few seasons.
I generally do not subscribe to the notion of game systems incompatibility. To me it's more about what the goals are and considerations of how to derive them.
I'm very curious now to have some idea of where you might have put such principles into practice. Because that's honestly bordering on word salad. The concept, such as it is, of game systems incompatibility is simply the basic realization, which you yourself explicitly mention, that different games tend to have different goals and more importantly different "considerations" in the context of their existing systems and playerbase. A system will only work if it properly integrates with the surrounding systems of the game, and there's no such thing as a universal system. Not subscribing to this is like not subscribing to gravity.
I take *inspiration* from all over the place, but transplanting game systems from one game to another wholesale is something so exceptionally rare to me that I would very much like to see examples of this happening, especially ones you have worked on and have direct insight with. Because absent some demonstrable proof of success, that sounds more like the start of a cautionary tale to me.
I remember having this argument during the Alpha for Champions Online and the HERO system. There were a lot of armchair designers taking the "transplant" side, and they went down with that ship kicking and screaming. They couldn't actually put their suggestions on the table, as it were, and they bet the game designers were right there with them right up to the point where they were told by those same developers why what they wanted was impossible. I've never seen this argument win, but I have seen it spectacularly lose.
Years after its release, Hearthstone's Ranked was changed to "help players progress in the ladder without having to grind as much, while still making most matches fair." Battlegrounds can learn from this.
Or, they can implement ranked seasonal restarts, which tackles similar problems in a different way and Kabam has stated they are already working on.
Here's an interesting question: why did Heathstone use the match system they did for so long? Is Kabam ten times smarter than Hearthstone's developers for tackling similar issues that much faster?
How familiar are you with Hearthstone between 2013 and 2020?
I have time in on both newer MCOC and older Hearthstone. In addition to my "thing" as a designer. So I'm bringing in some measure of context in my review of these matters.
So, depending on your knowledge of HS, I can either just jump into the middle of it if you know older HS well, or I can ease into it slowly and with added notes if you don't know older HS well.
You are recommending another game's match system as an example to follow, but you are unaware of the fact that one of Hearthstones' primary reasons for the changes was the long term effects of rank restarts in their own system (an issue they themselves call out in their change notes) or the fact that Kabam has already announced plans to restart players in successive seasons at higher VT tiers to better preserve the ladder structure of VT? If you are going to suggest technical recommendations borrowed from other games, this feels to me like a minimum prerequisite.
I don't exactly trust Blizzard as a company with regards to their transparency or omniscience. I don't blame them, they are a company and business is complicated. I appreciate and value some number of their communications, but ultimately it continues to be just another vector of input for me at this time.
I do not subscribe to your notions of "minimum prerequisite" for review and discussion. Goodwill, effort, experience, iteration and other traits are instead what I rely on. But, if that's your vibe, if that works for you, I can appreciate that.
Since you seem to have some familiarity with older HS, I'll share a tidbit of my own analysis. Basically the product and user experience transitioned over time to tie access and performance to escalating tiers of playerbase filtering monetization (adoption of Magic's "Standard" in 2016, switching official Blizzard esports events to Standard, changes in set Legendary cards in volume and quantity from Neutral to Class [notably in the three successive 2017 sets Journey To Un'Goro, Knights of the Frozen Throne, and Kobolds & Catacombs, and ebb and flow in follow-up sets], changes toward meta decks that use more disparate card pools, addition of combo archetype with weighting on Legendary cardpool and slow resolution and lack of anti-combo disruption options, etc.). This was also complicated by other game changes that produced still other impactful user experiences (Standard prompted many players to dust their Wild collections, which both created a false sense of new card acquisition rate and also setup players to hit a wall when content was later added to need deeper Wild collection resources, disruption from Hearthstone's Battlegrounds popularity, disruption from marketing hype targeting higher spend players, etc.). This eventually created a greater and growing disparity between the positioning and vector of players, which then strained the existing legacy game systems.
I did a short session of data gathering and refreshing of the issue to prep for this discussion. It was an issue I spent a considerable amount of time and review on back in the day. And one that ties directly into many game systems I regard to be exceptional and the target of my review, study, and exploration.
Every season, all players start at the bottom of the VT, leading to a gigantic mismatched pool of Summoners and a long grind for those who play for the Gladiator’s Circuit every month. To address this, our plan is to seed players to start the season. We are working on a system that will allow us to seed players based on where they finished the season before. We also need tech that will allow Summoners to earn the rewards for the VT ranks below where they are seeded. Both of these tech solutions are being worked on right now, but we don’t currently have an ETA. It will not be for at least a few seasons.
I generally do not subscribe to the notion of game systems incompatibility. To me it's more about what the goals are and considerations of how to derive them.
I'm very curious now to have some idea of where you might have put such principles into practice.
I generally subscribe to the notion of most systems being contextually compatible with other systems. Game or otherwise. It just depends on what outcomes are created and desired.
A game example is my creating a mob in 2007 that spawned on death a small number of random colored (yellow, blue, or red) harmless ooze mobs. Each color corresponded to a rarity level of reward. This was just me borrowing from the system of opening a sports or Magic card pack. Players enjoyed farming these mobs for the extra visual experience of hunting for the rare ooze mob colors and corresponding rewards.
I don't think the notion of using, splicing, etc. preexisting systems is really that exotic. People do it all the time. Fusion, etc.
The concept, such as it is, of game systems incompatibility is simply the basic realization, which you yourself explicitly mention, that different games tend to have different goals and more importantly different "considerations" in the context of their existing systems and playerbase. A system will only work if it properly integrates with the surrounding systems of the game, and there's no such thing as a universal system. Not subscribing to this is like not subscribing to gravity.
All systems are a part of the universal system.
As far as some form of "theory of everything", I tend to find most people trying to force such things to be zealots and/or political. Not really my thing. And it reminds me of Frank Herbert's words on such things riding in the same cart.
I don't think covering that stuff is gonna take us anywhere healthy or in a healthy way. Except maybe to steer us away from it.
I take *inspiration* from all over the place, but transplanting game systems from one game to another wholesale is something so exceptionally rare to me that I would very much like to see examples of this happening, especially ones you have worked on and have direct insight with. Because absent some demonstrable proof of success, that sounds more like the start of a cautionary tale to me.
A lot depends on your design process, the flexibility of the creation system you're in, and developing a sense for what to grab and how to tinker with it.
A "mad libs" type exercise of grabbing random elements and then forcing yourself to try to create a working system out of it can help develop this. In high school me and another guy used to make random squiggle shapes, then hand them to each other, then we had to make a drawing out of it.
This kind of creation process works for both theme and mechanics. When I was trying to come up with quest theme concepts, I used to load up Magic Online, pull up all the cards, then quickly cycle through the art starting at random. Looking for visual triggers to extract and piece together into a new collages. Character elements, events, tones, impacts, etc. One guy's intense look, the color palette on another card, the untold story of a verdant tangle in another.
I remember having this argument during the Alpha for Champions Online and the HERO system. There were a lot of armchair designers taking the "transplant" side, and they went down with that ship kicking and screaming. They couldn't actually put their suggestions on the table, as it were, and they bet the game designers were right there with them right up to the point where they were told by those same developers why what they wanted was impossible. I've never seen this argument win, but I have seen it spectacularly lose.
Just about everything is a transplant. How can you look at MCOC and not see the winding influence (direct or otherwise) of games like Street Fighter 2 and Karate Champ. Or the rpg influence of elements of stats, "buffs", "debuffs", etc.
If a designer can't develop or help develop output as needed, then that's its own thing. If it impacts the project, then that is a pipeline issue. The leads should be on that. If they are overmatched, then you widen the net, hunt for consultants of any stripe for input, etc. Or define and lock down your limitations, and then steer toward what you can do. Proof of concept is major. You can't just limp along without having that down, unless you just get lucky, you're just running a scam, or the bar is just really, really, low. I'm been pretty fortunate to be resourceful enough to tackle a lot of design hurdles with results. But a lot of products are navigating down psychological warfare these days, and (citing Herbert again), that is "a sword with no handle" that I don't want to get involved with.
Regarding "designers" vs. "armchair designers", I don't really care where the good content comes from. I've had some great insight from some really random sources. And I've also had great insight from people regarded as top designers. Sometimes its just isolated the right experience and question, and sticking someone in that maze, and then harvesting the clarity of vision they come back at you with.
But that's just me and what has worked for me or what I've seen. Sometimes things don't really work from one person to the next. If it's all just gobbledygook to you or others, that's just the way it is sometimes. It's all good.
People who refuse to do the content and progress should not be rewarded by giving them BGs as a sole purpose of progression...
People who refuse to do content and progress are not rewarded by the game.
Then why do they keep on wanting stuff catered to them?. Why can't they realize that hey.. they are only cav.. there is a limit to their rewards or possible success...
You have to increase your roster to raise your title so roster size is directly relates to your roster size.
Prestige is only 5 champs so if you do the content and r4 3 champs you can easily raise your prestige drastically by doing the story content and raising your title.
Hoarding is the name of the game. If you choose to blow all your tokens in an overpriced store (which is the whole F'n argument if you've forgotten) then that's up to you. My point is that it's not hard to raise your title to lower the price if you want to be smart with your resources.
It is NOT that easy to jet to Paragon. Regardless of some professional YouTubers. You're also ignoring the fact that hoarding for months is less of an issue of Rewards structure and more of a personal issue of keeping Players from being able to advance. There is no system that prevents anyone from hoarding their Trophies. You're not going to stop them from doing it by beating them down in Bronze. You've also ignored the logic presented about how that's not advantageous to do at all, and just leads to months of falling behind anyone who is already Paragon. If your sole concern is preventing anyone lower than you from making any progress, your focus is misplaced.
If you think it isn't easy to get Paragon then you can't also argue that non-Paragon players are just as skilled as Paragons. If it's too har to get then it proves that Paragons are the best players, right?
DNA just reminded me that Kabam intents to start players higher on the ladder in the near future. Unless things change, UC and Cav players will be able to easily get Plat and then lock in their place at that tier in perpetuity. Seems like a really flawed system.
You have to increase your roster to raise your title so roster size is directly relates to your roster size.
Prestige is only 5 champs so if you do the content and r4 3 champs you can easily raise your prestige drastically by doing the story content and raising your title.
Hoarding is the name of the game. If you choose to blow all your tokens in an overpriced store (which is the whole F'n argument if you've forgotten) then that's up to you. My point is that it's not hard to raise your title to lower the price if you want to be smart with your resources.
It is NOT that easy to jet to Paragon. Regardless of some professional YouTubers. You're also ignoring the fact that hoarding for months is less of an issue of Rewards structure and more of a personal issue of keeping Players from being able to advance. There is no system that prevents anyone from hoarding their Trophies. You're not going to stop them from doing it by beating them down in Bronze. You've also ignored the logic presented about how that's not advantageous to do at all, and just leads to months of falling behind anyone who is already Paragon. If your sole concern is preventing anyone lower than you from making any progress, your focus is misplaced.
If you think it isn't easy to get Paragon then you can't also argue that non-Paragon players are just as skilled as Paragons. If it's too har to get then it proves that Paragons are the best players, right?
You're talking about two things. The skill to do the content, and the time and effort to Rank the Champs required. Which indirectly relates to the skill, but also involves playing enough. Unless you want to buy it all in one go, and I'm unaware of any Offer that provides that.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
Wrong.
You think matchmaking filters by story progression?
People who refuse to do the content and progress should not be rewarded by giving them BGs as a sole purpose of progression...
People who refuse to do content and progress are not rewarded by the game.
Then why do they keep on wanting stuff catered to them?. Why can't they realize that hey.. they are only cav.. there is a limit to their rewards or possible success...
What tier according to you is the progress limit for cavaliers?
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
Wrong.
You think matchmaking filters by story progression?
Matchmaking uses prestige in some way. We all know that.
To get Paragon you need to beat story content AND get 3 r4s.
Getting 3 r4s increases your prestige.
Increasing your prestige increases the difficulty of matches.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
Wrong.
You think matchmaking filters by story progression?
Matchmaking uses prestige in some way. We all know that.
To get Paragon you need to beat story content AND get 3 r4s.
Getting 3 r4s increases your prestige.
Increasing your prestige increases the difficulty of matches.
It's not very hard to understand.
Matchmaking doesn't use prestige, it uses a broader roster strength metric which takes into account many more champs than just the top 5. It also matches within a range, so 3 r4s for early Paragons isn't shifting that range much. Cavs with multiple r3s are matching with Paragons right from Bronze 3.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
You always argue that the rewards are not the same, and UC/Cav don't compete for the same rewards...well if a Cav has multiple r3s its their own fault they are not able to buy at least TB items... The matches would be the same regardless..
People who refuse to do the content and progress should not be rewarded by giving them BGs as a sole purpose of progression...
People who refuse to do content and progress are not rewarded by the game.
Then why do they keep on wanting stuff catered to them?. Why can't they realize that hey.. they are only cav.. there is a limit to their rewards or possible success...
What tier according to you is the progress limit for cavaliers?
If BGs were a real competition, without catered matches, they probably wouldn't make it out of Gold
Matchmaking definitely different this season. I faced even matchups to p3 then won every match to GC.. matchups in platinum and diamond seemed completely random with no account strength matching. Had lots of mismatches on the way.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
Wrong.
You think matchmaking filters by story progression?
Matchmaking uses prestige in some way. We all know that.
To get Paragon you need to beat story content AND get 3 r4s.
Getting 3 r4s increases your prestige.
Increasing your prestige increases the difficulty of matches.
It's not very hard to understand.
Matchmaking doesn't use prestige, it uses a broader roster strength metric which takes into account many more champs than just the top 5. It also matches within a range, so 3 r4s for early Paragons isn't shifting that range much. Cavs with multiple r3s are matching with Paragons right from Bronze 3.
BS.. so many posts talking about the difficulty shift from Plat.. including this one.. and you say from Bronze 🤣 And he said similar to Prestige not the same.. for all you know it could be a new prestige based on 15-20-30 champs Is it so hard to swallow in that they are the 3rd and 4th progression level... And in a competition they are going to lose... Not cause of skill.. but just because they are the 3rd and 4th progression level? On top of that season 9 they are gonna get to stomp conquerors... Cause Conquerors are not even close to the matchmaking spectrum of Paragons..
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
You always argue that the rewards are not the same, and UC/Cav don't compete for the same rewards...well if a Cav has multiple r3s its their own fault they are not able to buy at least TB items... The matches would be the same regardless..
It is because matches are same that I argue for same rewards. To me, it doesn't make sense that one has to do something outside BG to access the same rewards as their peers do in BG, while competing at the same level.
The link to story progression made sense when there were fewer content options to spend energy on. With the game becoming broader, there should be more paths to progress than just one.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
You always argue that the rewards are not the same, and UC/Cav don't compete for the same rewards...well if a Cav has multiple r3s its their own fault they are not able to buy at least TB items... The matches would be the same regardless..
It is because matches are same that I argue for same rewards. To me, it doesn't make sense that one has to do something outside BG to access the same rewards as their peers do in BG, while competing at the same level.
The link to story progression made sense when there were fewer content options to spend energy on. With the game becoming broader, there should be more paths to progress than just one.
If matches are the same due to rosters being similar to a TB its their own fault they are not TB.. This is the argument i had for a long time.. Cavs with over inflated accounts for a Cav player, not doing content and complaining about "tough" matches against TBs when they have a TB account .. and then saying "well the rewards are not the same" .. they would be if they did the content... U argue the same reward due to matches being the same but they didn't do the same content did they? And having a competition between 4 progression levels (season 9 will be 5) doesnt make sense from the get go.. they should have done 2 Bgs UC/Cav and TB/Paragon. Also the reward store gates are made so players push and get better rewards, not use it as a sole source of roster development
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
You always argue that the rewards are not the same, and UC/Cav don't compete for the same rewards...well if a Cav has multiple r3s its their own fault they are not able to buy at least TB items... The matches would be the same regardless..
It is because matches are same that I argue for same rewards. To me, it doesn't make sense that one has to do something outside BG to access the same rewards as their peers do in BG, while competing at the same level.
The link to story progression made sense when there were fewer content options to spend energy on. With the game becoming broader, there should be more paths to progress than just one.
If matches are the same due to rosters being similar to a TB its their own fault they are not TB.. This is the argument i had for a long time.. Cavs with over inflated accounts for a Cav player, not doing content and complaining about "tough" matches against TBs when they have a TB account .. and then saying "well the rewards are not the same" .. they would be if they did the content... U argue the same reward due to matches being the same but they didn't do the same content did they? And having a competition between 4 progression levels (season 9 will be 5) doesnt make sense from the get go.. they should have done 2 Bgs UC/Cav and TB/Paragon. Also the reward store gates are made so players push and get better rewards, not use it as a sole source of roster development
They will argue next to open featured arena for proven summoners. Why can’t they have a shot at grinding for a six star featured champ? Why should story mode progression hold them back.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
You always argue that the rewards are not the same, and UC/Cav don't compete for the same rewards...well if a Cav has multiple r3s its their own fault they are not able to buy at least TB items... The matches would be the same regardless..
It is because matches are same that I argue for same rewards. To me, it doesn't make sense that one has to do something outside BG to access the same rewards as their peers do in BG, while competing at the same level.
The link to story progression made sense when there were fewer content options to spend energy on. With the game becoming broader, there should be more paths to progress than just one.
If matches are the same due to rosters being similar to a TB its their own fault they are not TB.. This is the argument i had for a long time.. Cavs with over inflated accounts for a Cav player, not doing content and complaining about "tough" matches against TBs when they have a TB account .. and then saying "well the rewards are not the same" .. they would be if they did the content... U argue the same reward due to matches being the same but they didn't do the same content did they? And having a competition between 4 progression levels (season 9 will be 5) doesnt make sense from the get go.. they should have done 2 Bgs UC/Cav and TB/Paragon. Also the reward store gates are made so players push and get better rewards, not use it as a sole source of roster development
They will argue next to open featured arena for proven summoners. Why can’t they have a shot at grinding for a six star featured champ? Why should story mode progression hold them back.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
You always argue that the rewards are not the same, and UC/Cav don't compete for the same rewards...well if a Cav has multiple r3s its their own fault they are not able to buy at least TB items... The matches would be the same regardless..
It is because matches are same that I argue for same rewards. To me, it doesn't make sense that one has to do something outside BG to access the same rewards as their peers do in BG, while competing at the same level.
The link to story progression made sense when there were fewer content options to spend energy on. With the game becoming broader, there should be more paths to progress than just one.
If matches are the same due to rosters being similar to a TB its their own fault they are not TB.. This is the argument i had for a long time.. Cavs with over inflated accounts for a Cav player, not doing content and complaining about "tough" matches against TBs when they have a TB account .. and then saying "well the rewards are not the same" .. they would be if they did the content... U argue the same reward due to matches being the same but they didn't do the same content did they? And having a competition between 4 progression levels (season 9 will be 5) doesnt make sense from the get go.. they should have done 2 Bgs UC/Cav and TB/Paragon. Also the reward store gates are made so players push and get better rewards, not use it as a sole source of roster development
There are always people who don't do some content. They don't get punished in other content for making that choice.
People who don't do AW don't get lesser items in Arena. If you chose to do AQ, it doesn't affect you in Incursions. Your AW rewards are not limited by story progression. BG is closer to AW than any other mode, they could have used the same rewards template instead of a progression restricted store.
In BG launch announcement, there was a suggestion that players should now expect to make choices on which modes they want to devote time to. I think it was a perfect opportunity to provide players with different progression paths.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
You always argue that the rewards are not the same, and UC/Cav don't compete for the same rewards...well if a Cav has multiple r3s its their own fault they are not able to buy at least TB items... The matches would be the same regardless..
It is because matches are same that I argue for same rewards. To me, it doesn't make sense that one has to do something outside BG to access the same rewards as their peers do in BG, while competing at the same level.
The link to story progression made sense when there were fewer content options to spend energy on. With the game becoming broader, there should be more paths to progress than just one.
If matches are the same due to rosters being similar to a TB its their own fault they are not TB.. This is the argument i had for a long time.. Cavs with over inflated accounts for a Cav player, not doing content and complaining about "tough" matches against TBs when they have a TB account .. and then saying "well the rewards are not the same" .. they would be if they did the content... U argue the same reward due to matches being the same but they didn't do the same content did they? And having a competition between 4 progression levels (season 9 will be 5) doesnt make sense from the get go.. they should have done 2 Bgs UC/Cav and TB/Paragon. Also the reward store gates are made so players push and get better rewards, not use it as a sole source of roster development
They will argue next to open featured arena for proven summoners. Why can’t they have a shot at grinding for a six star featured champ? Why should story mode progression hold them back.
They did already when Arena changed its format...
I was being facetious. In any case basic and featured arenas unlock at UC. Prior to that people only have access to the summoner trials.
If people spent time doing content instead of complaining they would probably get to Paragon pretty fast... Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
Cavs with multiple r3s are getting the same matches Paragons with multiple r3s get. At all tiers.
You always argue that the rewards are not the same, and UC/Cav don't compete for the same rewards...well if a Cav has multiple r3s its their own fault they are not able to buy at least TB items... The matches would be the same regardless..
It is because matches are same that I argue for same rewards. To me, it doesn't make sense that one has to do something outside BG to access the same rewards as their peers do in BG, while competing at the same level.
The link to story progression made sense when there were fewer content options to spend energy on. With the game becoming broader, there should be more paths to progress than just one.
If matches are the same due to rosters being similar to a TB its their own fault they are not TB.. This is the argument i had for a long time.. Cavs with over inflated accounts for a Cav player, not doing content and complaining about "tough" matches against TBs when they have a TB account .. and then saying "well the rewards are not the same" .. they would be if they did the content... U argue the same reward due to matches being the same but they didn't do the same content did they? And having a competition between 4 progression levels (season 9 will be 5) doesnt make sense from the get go.. they should have done 2 Bgs UC/Cav and TB/Paragon. Also the reward store gates are made so players push and get better rewards, not use it as a sole source of roster development
There are always people who don't do some content. They don't get punished in other content for making that choice.
People who don't do AW don't get lesser items in Arena. If you chose to do AQ, it doesn't affect you in Incursions. Your AW rewards are not limited by story progression. BG is closer to AW than any other mode, they could have used the same rewards template instead of a progression restricted store.
In BG launch announcement, there was a suggestion that players should now expect to make choices on which modes they want to devote time to. I think it was a perfect opportunity to provide players with different progression paths.
Tell me a SOLO content where they don't get punished... Because you talk about being punished.. but they do benefit from MOST alliance contents... 4 Different progression levels in the same competition is ridiculous, and if its gonna be ridiculous the ones benefitting from it should be the top not the bottom, because they put the work. Kabam already said it . If u got high on VT or even GC as a UC or Cav, start working on your roster cause that won't happen anymore... The difficulty shift at Plat is the perfect example..
Comments
Hoarding might be the name of the game, Paragons can hoard too (like you have claimed you were doing when store changes were announced). That is not the same as camping at lower levels.
Story progression doesn't impact matchmaking, only roster strength does (and much broader view than just prestige). One doesn't get matched with people at same progression level, they get matched with players with similar rosters. If there is a UC with 9-11K roster and a Paragon with 11-13K, they are getting matched with each other. Nobody is camping at UC to hoard tokens, that is a extremely suboptimal strategy.
Currently, as it now stands, it seems it is roster matching to plat, then free for all. Which is quite a good compromise.
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/330745/battlegrounds-addressing-concerns-and-future-improvements-dev-diary/p1
I'm very curious now to have some idea of where you might have put such principles into practice. Because that's honestly bordering on word salad. The concept, such as it is, of game systems incompatibility is simply the basic realization, which you yourself explicitly mention, that different games tend to have different goals and more importantly different "considerations" in the context of their existing systems and playerbase. A system will only work if it properly integrates with the surrounding systems of the game, and there's no such thing as a universal system. Not subscribing to this is like not subscribing to gravity.
I take *inspiration* from all over the place, but transplanting game systems from one game to another wholesale is something so exceptionally rare to me that I would very much like to see examples of this happening, especially ones you have worked on and have direct insight with. Because absent some demonstrable proof of success, that sounds more like the start of a cautionary tale to me.
I remember having this argument during the Alpha for Champions Online and the HERO system. There were a lot of armchair designers taking the "transplant" side, and they went down with that ship kicking and screaming. They couldn't actually put their suggestions on the table, as it were, and they bet the game designers were right there with them right up to the point where they were told by those same developers why what they wanted was impossible. I've never seen this argument win, but I have seen it spectacularly lose.
I do not subscribe to your notions of "minimum prerequisite" for review and discussion. Goodwill, effort, experience, iteration and other traits are instead what I rely on. But, if that's your vibe, if that works for you, I can appreciate that.
Since you seem to have some familiarity with older HS, I'll share a tidbit of my own analysis. Basically the product and user experience transitioned over time to tie access and performance to escalating tiers of playerbase filtering monetization (adoption of Magic's "Standard" in 2016, switching official Blizzard esports events to Standard, changes in set Legendary cards in volume and quantity from Neutral to Class [notably in the three successive 2017 sets Journey To Un'Goro, Knights of the Frozen Throne, and Kobolds & Catacombs, and ebb and flow in follow-up sets], changes toward meta decks that use more disparate card pools, addition of combo archetype with weighting on Legendary cardpool and slow resolution and lack of anti-combo disruption options, etc.). This was also complicated by other game changes that produced still other impactful user experiences (Standard prompted many players to dust their Wild collections, which both created a false sense of new card acquisition rate and also setup players to hit a wall when content was later added to need deeper Wild collection resources, disruption from Hearthstone's Battlegrounds popularity, disruption from marketing hype targeting higher spend players, etc.). This eventually created a greater and growing disparity between the positioning and vector of players, which then strained the existing legacy game systems.
I did a short session of data gathering and refreshing of the issue to prep for this discussion. It was an issue I spent a considerable amount of time and review on back in the day. And one that ties directly into many game systems I regard to be exceptional and the target of my review, study, and exploration. Thank you for the link and information. I reviewed the section on "Season Reset". And now hopefully understand more in that context. I generally subscribe to the notion of most systems being contextually compatible with other systems. Game or otherwise. It just depends on what outcomes are created and desired.
A game example is my creating a mob in 2007 that spawned on death a small number of random colored (yellow, blue, or red) harmless ooze mobs. Each color corresponded to a rarity level of reward. This was just me borrowing from the system of opening a sports or Magic card pack. Players enjoyed farming these mobs for the extra visual experience of hunting for the rare ooze mob colors and corresponding rewards.
I don't think the notion of using, splicing, etc. preexisting systems is really that exotic. People do it all the time. Fusion, etc. That sounds like more of a communication issue. Maybe we just don't relate conceptually well to each other. It happens. All systems are a part of the universal system.
As far as some form of "theory of everything", I tend to find most people trying to force such things to be zealots and/or political. Not really my thing. And it reminds me of Frank Herbert's words on such things riding in the same cart.
I don't think covering that stuff is gonna take us anywhere healthy or in a healthy way. Except maybe to steer us away from it. A lot depends on your design process, the flexibility of the creation system you're in, and developing a sense for what to grab and how to tinker with it.
A "mad libs" type exercise of grabbing random elements and then forcing yourself to try to create a working system out of it can help develop this. In high school me and another guy used to make random squiggle shapes, then hand them to each other, then we had to make a drawing out of it.
This kind of creation process works for both theme and mechanics. When I was trying to come up with quest theme concepts, I used to load up Magic Online, pull up all the cards, then quickly cycle through the art starting at random. Looking for visual triggers to extract and piece together into a new collages. Character elements, events, tones, impacts, etc. One guy's intense look, the color palette on another card, the untold story of a verdant tangle in another. Just about everything is a transplant. How can you look at MCOC and not see the winding influence (direct or otherwise) of games like Street Fighter 2 and Karate Champ. Or the rpg influence of elements of stats, "buffs", "debuffs", etc.
If a designer can't develop or help develop output as needed, then that's its own thing. If it impacts the project, then that is a pipeline issue. The leads should be on that. If they are overmatched, then you widen the net, hunt for consultants of any stripe for input, etc. Or define and lock down your limitations, and then steer toward what you can do. Proof of concept is major. You can't just limp along without having that down, unless you just get lucky, you're just running a scam, or the bar is just really, really, low. I'm been pretty fortunate to be resourceful enough to tackle a lot of design hurdles with results. But a lot of products are navigating down psychological warfare these days, and (citing Herbert again), that is "a sword with no handle" that I don't want to get involved with.
Regarding "designers" vs. "armchair designers", I don't really care where the good content comes from. I've had some great insight from some really random sources. And I've also had great insight from people regarded as top designers. Sometimes its just isolated the right experience and question, and sticking someone in that maze, and then harvesting the clarity of vision they come back at you with.
But that's just me and what has worked for me or what I've seen. Sometimes things don't really work from one person to the next. If it's all just gobbledygook to you or others, that's just the way it is sometimes. It's all good.
Any paragon players who lose to me should just quit the game at this point
Also UCs with 6*s, Cavs with multiple r3s getting "bad matches" is quite a bit satisfying
To get Paragon you need to beat story content AND get 3 r4s.
Getting 3 r4s increases your prestige.
Increasing your prestige increases the difficulty of matches.
It's not very hard to understand.
The matches would be the same regardless.. If BGs were a real competition, without catered matches, they probably wouldn't make it out of Gold
I faced even matchups to p3 then won every match to GC.. matchups in platinum and diamond seemed completely random with no account strength matching.
Had lots of mismatches on the way.
And he said similar to Prestige not the same.. for all you know it could be a new prestige based on 15-20-30 champs
Is it so hard to swallow in that they are the 3rd and 4th progression level... And in a competition they are going to lose... Not cause of skill.. but just because they are the 3rd and 4th progression level?
On top of that season 9 they are gonna get to stomp conquerors... Cause Conquerors are not even close to the matchmaking spectrum of Paragons..
The link to story progression made sense when there were fewer content options to spend energy on. With the game becoming broader, there should be more paths to progress than just one.
This is the argument i had for a long time.. Cavs with over inflated accounts for a Cav player, not doing content and complaining about "tough" matches against TBs when they have a TB account .. and then saying "well the rewards are not the same" .. they would be if they did the content...
U argue the same reward due to matches being the same but they didn't do the same content did they?
And having a competition between 4 progression levels (season 9 will be 5) doesnt make sense from the get go.. they should have done 2 Bgs UC/Cav and TB/Paragon.
Also the reward store gates are made so players push and get better rewards, not use it as a sole source of roster development
People who don't do AW don't get lesser items in Arena. If you chose to do AQ, it doesn't affect you in Incursions. Your AW rewards are not limited by story progression. BG is closer to AW than any other mode, they could have used the same rewards template instead of a progression restricted store.
In BG launch announcement, there was a suggestion that players should now expect to make choices on which modes they want to devote time to. I think it was a perfect opportunity to provide players with different progression paths.
Because you talk about being punished.. but they do benefit from MOST alliance contents...
4 Different progression levels in the same competition is ridiculous, and if its gonna be ridiculous the ones benefitting from it should be the top not the bottom, because they put the work.
Kabam already said it . If u got high on VT or even GC as a UC or Cav, start working on your roster cause that won't happen anymore... The difficulty shift at Plat is the perfect example..