A respectful response if I ever heard one. You're absolutely right. I'm not the best at the game. I'm middle-of-the-road. I'm not in a Top Alliance, not doing Map 8 AQ, not the best at anything here. I don't know everything there is to know about the game. What I do know, and I would bet dollars to cents on it, is human beings. I know people. I know human behavior. I know what constitutes just enough to motivate people, and what becomes a drain. I know how the human beings who are behind those "loser" Accounts (as you so eloquently put it) are going to react over time. Watch and see. Also, if you feel that intrinsically better than people who are in lower progression in a game, perhaps seeking help might be beneficial.
Now you're changing your own goal post. I don't think I'm the one hearing what they want. Fair is fair for everyone. I'm not obtuse. I know the system needs to transition. I know that everyone will have to plateau eventually. I know it's a competition. I also know that it's positively ignorant to keep brushing off the concerns of people lower just because they don't fit your own narrative. I said it before and I'll say it again. If you continue to marginalize the concerns of a number of Players, it's only a matter of time before they give up on playing it. If you think that BGs can run just fine without a number of people playing it, I'm not sure you're aware of what is needed for matchmaking requirements. Either way, the fact that it's a competition doesn't mean any one Player has a monopoly and ownership on the experience. Everyone's progress matters. Period.
The only "fair for everyone" system is completely open matchmaking where anyone in each tier can face anyone else in that tier. What you're demanding is siloed matchmaking so you and other low-end players can avoid the top so you can artificially advance.
The sad thing is that with open matchmaking in addition to the new tiered starts it would only last one season of low players facing top players for it all to balance out.
Welcome to the ladder. Just wait until you hit platinum and start matching against paragons with all r5 and r4 6*s in their deck because you can match anyone once you hit there.
Also battlegrounds is not designed to be fair, if you can't progress, then it is time to focus your efforts on story content and roster development
See, now that's dismissive. If people aren't expected to participate in the game mode, then they shouldn't be in it.
No one is expected to participate in Battlegrounds. Battlegrounds is a competition. Not everyone will necessarily want to participate in a competition. PvE game modes are designed to offer a specific kind of challenge, the kind where the player usually wins. In PvP game modes, on average players only win half the time, and for every player that wins two out of three, someone else has to lose two out of three.
Also, competitions are not meant to be fair in the sense of everyone having an even chance of winning. That's called flipping a coin. In every normal competition competitors are allowed to, and in fact expected to try to gain advantages over their competition. So long as those advantages follow the rules, those advantages are fair advantages and the overall competition is fair, even if individual competitive matches are not.
The FIDE World Cup of chess recently completed its tournament. This is one of the qualifying tournaments for the Candidates tournament - the tournament that decides who gets to challenge the world champion. There were 206 competitors that qualified for the World Cup tournament. The tournament is single elimination match format, players play in a bracketed tournament format. The highest rating discrepancy I recall was about 450 points of ELO between competitors. If I were to play a player rated 450 ratings points lower than me I would probably win about 97% of the time. Is this remotely fair? Yes, because they are all competing for a shot at the top, and to be the best you have to beat the best. Nobody complains.
People keep saying that Battlegrounds is so unfair that no other competition in existence would allow such disparate match ups. But in fact, *every* competition does. The most lopsided Superbowl was 55 to 10, and it wasn't even that close. Tiger Woods won the US Open in 2000 by 15 strokes. If you build that much of an advantage over the competition, you just destroy the competition, and the competition has no choice but to lose. I remember watching Superbowl 24: that game was over in the second quarter. Denver could have put two extra guys on the field every play and it wouldn't have made a difference.
People who expect the competition to be hand picked to match their capabilities are using PvE mindsets to judge PvP game play. It is one of the reasons I believe PvP should always be incorporated into game designs from the start. It isn't a question of game design, it is a question of player psychology. If you don't teach your players what a competition is, they only learn what beating up the environment is like. They think it is fair for the player to bring as strong of a team as they want into the content. They don't believe the content should be allowed to respond in kind.
But in a competition, you have to assume anything you can do the other side can and will do better. And that includes bringing bazookas to a knife fight. And sometimes you're going to have to lose five in a row because the other guy wants to win five in a row more than you do.
A respectful response if I ever heard one. You're absolutely right. I'm not the best at the game. I'm middle-of-the-road. I'm not in a Top Alliance, not doing Map 8 AQ, not the best at anything here. I don't know everything there is to know about the game. What I do know, and I would bet dollars to cents on it, is human beings. I know people. I know human behavior. I know what constitutes just enough to motivate people, and what becomes a drain. I know how the human beings who are behind those "loser" Accounts (as you so eloquently put it) are going to react over time. Watch and see. Also, if you feel that intrinsically better than people who are in lower progression in a game, perhaps seeking help might be beneficial.
What motivates people is winning, fixing a "chance to win" goes against the spirit of a competition.
This also means that newer Paragon players in Gold and Silver would facing against whales and more experience Paragon accounts will be in the same boat as OP. How is this fair that a Paragon account with 1 million rating be up against a account who has a stacked account. The newer Paragon or smaller Paragon accounts would have a very small to no chance of winning.
You keep defending the fair play for all but what is fair to one isn't always view as fair to another. There is a minimum two sides to every story. One side that BG match should be more fair as in account size wise, The other is why should small accounts be able to progess to the top of the BG ranking and be rewarded like the top palyer if they only face similar competition.
In your scenario @GroundedWisdom, skill would be more of a deciding factor which would make sense, but why would a game developer allow this to happen without a different set of rewards. If an uncollected can become the top player just by playing similar accounts, what incentive is it for them to grow their account. They would have zero incentive since once they reach the next level of progession they would be at the bottom of the progresssion and thee other players woud have a huge advantage in terms or roster strength and size. How does Kabam benefit from a player who doesn't want to progess since it won't benefit. They can stay at their pgoression level and don't have to face the top players like KT1, Legacy , Beroman, etc. This is like a dream scenario for the lower accounts.
What is your idea of a system that's fair for everyone?
This also means that newer Paragon players in Gold and Silver would facing against whales and more experience Paragon accounts will be in the same boat as OP. How is this fair that a Paragon account with 1 million rating be up against a account who has a stacked account. The newer Paragon or smaller Paragon accounts would have a very small to no chance of winning.
You keep defending the fair play for all but what is fair to one isn't always view as fair to another. There is a minimum two sides to every story. One side that BG match should be more fair as in account size wise, The other is why should small accounts be able to progess to the top of the BG ranking and be rewarded like the top palyer if they only face similar competition.
In your scenario @GroundedWisdom, skill would be more of a deciding factor which would make sense, but why would a game developer allow this to happen without a different set of rewards. If an uncollected can become the top player just by playing similar accounts, what incentive is it for them to grow their account. They would have zero incentive since once they reach the next level of progession they would be at the bottom of the progresssion and thee other players woud have a huge advantage in terms or roster strength and size. How does Kabam benefit from a player who doesn't want to progess since it won't benefit. They can stay at their pgoression level and don't have to face the top players like KT1, Legacy , Beroman, etc. This is like a dream scenario for the lower accounts.
What is your idea of a system that's fair for everyone?
In an ideal situation, Players of relatively equal footing would come up against each other until they meet stronger and stronger competition and either succeed, or fizzle out. That's a natural limit. It's easy to acclimatize and progress with that over time. This idea that they need to be thrown in the deep end from the get-go is just chest beating as far as I'm concerned. It's ignorant to where they're at, and what they can actually compete with, with reasonable progress over time.
Welcome to the ladder. Just wait until you hit platinum and start matching against paragons with all r5 and r4 6*s in their deck because you can match anyone once you hit there.
Also battlegrounds is not designed to be fair, if you can't progress, then it is time to focus your efforts on story content and roster development
See, now that's dismissive. If people aren't expected to participate in the game mode, then they shouldn't be in it.
No one is expected to participate in Battlegrounds. Battlegrounds is a competition. Not everyone will necessarily want to participate in a competition. PvE game modes are designed to offer a specific kind of challenge, the kind where the player usually wins. In PvP game modes, on average players only win half the time, and for every player that wins two out of three, someone else has to lose two out of three.
Also, competitions are not meant to be fair in the sense of everyone having an even chance of winning. That's called flipping a coin. In every normal competition competitors are allowed to, and in fact expected to try to gain advantages over their competition. So long as those advantages follow the rules, those advantages are fair advantages and the overall competition is fair, even if individual competitive matches are not.
The FIDE World Cup of chess recently completed its tournament. This is one of the qualifying tournaments for the Candidates tournament - the tournament that decides who gets to challenge the world champion. There were 206 competitors that qualified for the World Cup tournament. The tournament is single elimination match format, players play in a bracketed tournament format. The highest rating discrepancy I recall was about 450 points of ELO between competitors. If I were to play a player rated 450 ratings points lower than me I would probably win about 97% of the time. Is this remotely fair? Yes, because they are all competing for a shot at the top, and to be the best you have to beat the best. Nobody complains.
People keep saying that Battlegrounds is so unfair that no other competition in existence would allow such disparate match ups. But in fact, *every* competition does. The most lopsided Superbowl was 55 to 10, and it wasn't even that close. Tiger Woods won the US Open in 2000 by 15 strokes. If you build that much of an advantage over the competition, you just destroy the competition, and the competition has no choice but to lose. I remember watching Superbowl 24: that game was over in the second quarter. Denver could have put two extra guys on the field every play and it wouldn't have made a difference.
People who expect the competition to be hand picked to match their capabilities are using PvE mindsets to judge PvP game play. It is one of the reasons I believe PvP should always be incorporated into game designs from the start. It isn't a question of game design, it is a question of player psychology. If you don't teach your players what a competition is, they only learn what beating up the environment is like. They think it is fair for the player to bring as strong of a team as they want into the content. They don't believe the content should be allowed to respond in kind.
But in a competition, you have to assume anything you can do the other side can and will do better. And that includes bringing bazookas to a knife fight. And sometimes you're going to have to lose five in a row because the other guy wants to win five in a row more than you do.
You and I will always see differently on this. Yes, they're going to get overpowered eventually. No question. That doesn't mean it's tenet from the start. War is like that. We see how people have lost desire to play that mode. You may have strong feelings about that, but so do I.
This also means that newer Paragon players in Gold and Silver would facing against whales and more experience Paragon accounts will be in the same boat as OP. How is this fair that a Paragon account with 1 million rating be up against a account who has a stacked account. The newer Paragon or smaller Paragon accounts would have a very small to no chance of winning.
You keep defending the fair play for all but what is fair to one isn't always view as fair to another. There is a minimum two sides to every story. One side that BG match should be more fair as in account size wise, The other is why should small accounts be able to progess to the top of the BG ranking and be rewarded like the top palyer if they only face similar competition.
In your scenario @GroundedWisdom, skill would be more of a deciding factor which would make sense, but why would a game developer allow this to happen without a different set of rewards. If an uncollected can become the top player just by playing similar accounts, what incentive is it for them to grow their account. They would have zero incentive since once they reach the next level of progession they would be at the bottom of the progresssion and thee other players woud have a huge advantage in terms or roster strength and size. How does Kabam benefit from a player who doesn't want to progess since it won't benefit. They can stay at their pgoression level and don't have to face the top players like KT1, Legacy , Beroman, etc. This is like a dream scenario for the lower accounts.
What is your idea of a system that's fair for everyone?
In an ideal situation, Players of relatively equal footing would come up against each other until they meet stronger and stronger competition and either succeed, or fizzle out. That's a natural limit. It's easy to acclimatize and progress with that over time. This idea that they need to be thrown in the deep end from the get-go is just chest beating as far as I'm concerned. It's ignorant to where they're at, and what they can actually compete with, with reasonable progress over time.
Welcome to the ladder. Just wait until you hit platinum and start matching against paragons with all r5 and r4 6*s in their deck because you can match anyone once you hit there.
Also battlegrounds is not designed to be fair, if you can't progress, then it is time to focus your efforts on story content and roster development
See, now that's dismissive. If people aren't expected to participate in the game mode, then they shouldn't be in it.
No one is expected to participate in Battlegrounds. Battlegrounds is a competition. Not everyone will necessarily want to participate in a competition. PvE game modes are designed to offer a specific kind of challenge, the kind where the player usually wins. In PvP game modes, on average players only win half the time, and for every player that wins two out of three, someone else has to lose two out of three.
Also, competitions are not meant to be fair in the sense of everyone having an even chance of winning. That's called flipping a coin. In every normal competition competitors are allowed to, and in fact expected to try to gain advantages over their competition. So long as those advantages follow the rules, those advantages are fair advantages and the overall competition is fair, even if individual competitive matches are not.
The FIDE World Cup of chess recently completed its tournament. This is one of the qualifying tournaments for the Candidates tournament - the tournament that decides who gets to challenge the world champion. There were 206 competitors that qualified for the World Cup tournament. The tournament is single elimination match format, players play in a bracketed tournament format. The highest rating discrepancy I recall was about 450 points of ELO between competitors. If I were to play a player rated 450 ratings points lower than me I would probably win about 97% of the time. Is this remotely fair? Yes, because they are all competing for a shot at the top, and to be the best you have to beat the best. Nobody complains.
People keep saying that Battlegrounds is so unfair that no other competition in existence would allow such disparate match ups. But in fact, *every* competition does. The most lopsided Superbowl was 55 to 10, and it wasn't even that close. Tiger Woods won the US Open in 2000 by 15 strokes. If you build that much of an advantage over the competition, you just destroy the competition, and the competition has no choice but to lose. I remember watching Superbowl 24: that game was over in the second quarter. Denver could have put two extra guys on the field every play and it wouldn't have made a difference.
People who expect the competition to be hand picked to match their capabilities are using PvE mindsets to judge PvP game play. It is one of the reasons I believe PvP should always be incorporated into game designs from the start. It isn't a question of game design, it is a question of player psychology. If you don't teach your players what a competition is, they only learn what beating up the environment is like. They think it is fair for the player to bring as strong of a team as they want into the content. They don't believe the content should be allowed to respond in kind.
But in a competition, you have to assume anything you can do the other side can and will do better. And that includes bringing bazookas to a knife fight. And sometimes you're going to have to lose five in a row because the other guy wants to win five in a row more than you do.
You and I will always see differently on this. Yes, they're going to get overpowered eventually. No question. That doesn't mean it's tenet from the start. War is like that. We see how people have lost desire to play that mode. You may have strong feelings about that, but so do I.
War is like that? People have lost interest? You should start changing the "People" for "I"... This long off season upset a lot of "People" that didn't have war as a game mode. You define yourself as a mid level player, makes sense to lose interest on grounds you can't succeed without a handicap, both being PVP aspects.
Kabam, for the love of GOD, please give this man GC rewards already! I am baffled by how suddenly serious you are about entering GC. You have been playing this game longer than most of us, and I know you are a very, very casual player. So, why is there this non-stop nagging about GC being so difficult?
I'm not getting into the War discussion here, but you really need to differentiate when I'm talking about my own experience versus the whole.
You use the term "People" a lot and as far as I know everyone disagreeing with you are people too. You don't enjoy losing and you want the game mode to keep you interested. It should be the other way around, you should better yourself to be able to compete instead of "just quitting" Moral highgrounds are a funny thing, talk about respect, about the human side, being a better person. Never heard a positive story about quitters.
Kabam, for the love of GOD, please give this man GC rewards already! I am baffled by how suddenly serious you are about entering GC. You have been playing this game longer than most of us, and I know you are a very, very casual player. So, why is there this non-stop nagging about GC being so difficult?
See, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not after any personal gain in these discussions. If there's anything I've proven in the last 7 or 8 years, it's that I'm content doing my own thing. I'm talking about the same thing everyone else is. We may disagree or agree, but most of us want the same things, really. We want what's best for the overall.
See, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not after any personal gain in these discussions. If there's anything I've proven in the last 7 or 8 years, it's that I'm content doing my own thing. I'm talking about the same thing everyone else is. We may disagree or agree, but most of us want the same things, really. We want what's best for the overall.
Weren't you complaining about not being able to get out of Gold on a different post when you reached GC in seasons 8 and 9? You are talking about the same thing as a UC when you have 7-8 years of experience, ITS NOT THE SAME
See, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not after any personal gain in these discussions. If there's anything I've proven in the last 7 or 8 years, it's that I'm content doing my own thing. I'm talking about the same thing everyone else is. We may disagree or agree, but most of us want the same things, really. We want what's best for the overall.
Weren't you complaining about not being able to get out of Gold on a different post when you reached GC in seasons 8 and 9? You are talking about the same thing as a UC when you have 7-8 years of experience, ITS NOT THE SAME
I talked about my journey in the last 3 Seasons on my own Threads, yes. As a TB, who is just waiting to beat Kang. That isn't my modus operandi on every discussion I talk about the subject in. Good Lord.
In AW... you get paired against alliances at similar levels. As you win, it gets harder, as you lose, it gets easier. Aside from people getting better and the ebb and flow of people in and out of alliances... matches are "theoretically balanced".
Battlegrounds is dog eat dog ranking. Kabam could certainly make a "Paragon bracket with the best rewards" and people who's rosters are easier in progression face off against eachother, but then get far lessor rewards. That is typically what most modes are... and people then complain why they can't try their way at higher modes.
There is some, ability, but effectively no equivalent to revive farming / unit man... and brute forcing your way through something "before you are ready" in battlegrounds. That's the point of the mode.
You may not like to hear it... but for at least this one mode... the proverbial "just get better" is the answer. If you don't like it... there are plenty of other modes out there to play.
I doubt people are brute forcing their way through. Perhaps they are, but eventually they will hit a roadblock that way. Personally, I resort to Shields when I'm one Win away from advancing. Quite honestly, it's less infuriating than up and down and up and down. Kabam has determined that people are ready when they meet the requirements. Unless they change, that's what we're looking at.
You and I will always see differently on this. Yes, they're going to get overpowered eventually. No question. That doesn't mean it's tenet from the start. War is like that. We see how people have lost desire to play that mode. You may have strong feelings about that, but so do I.
If you don't want to get overpowered that's fine. That's a preference. If you don't think the game should ever allow such circumstances that's also fine. That's an opinion. However, there are people who say that this situation is absurd because it never happens anywhere else, and that's overwhelmingly false: the exact opposite is true, and only seems to be the case because people hand pick very warped examples (why do high school students not match against the NFL? Because they are in fact not playing the same competition at all: high school football is a completely different organized sport than the NFL. It isn't because it would be unfair, it is because that would be as absurd as the Denver Broncos playing against the Chinese world ping pong team).
It is not my opinion that competitions work this way. All competitions work this way, because it is a defining property of all competitions. Everything that works the way some people claim it should work, with the sport carefully selecting opponents so as to prevent overmatched meetings, is a staged activity suitable for kindergartens and senior living spaces. It simply does not happen in anything that dares to claim itself to be a competition.
This also means that newer Paragon players in Gold and Silver would facing against whales and more experience Paragon accounts will be in the same boat as OP. How is this fair that a Paragon account with 1 million rating be up against a account who has a stacked account. The newer Paragon or smaller Paragon accounts would have a very small to no chance of winning.
You keep defending the fair play for all but what is fair to one isn't always view as fair to another. There is a minimum two sides to every story. One side that BG match should be more fair as in account size wise, The other is why should small accounts be able to progess to the top of the BG ranking and be rewarded like the top palyer if they only face similar competition.
In your scenario @GroundedWisdom, skill would be more of a deciding factor which would make sense, but why would a game developer allow this to happen without a different set of rewards. If an uncollected can become the top player just by playing similar accounts, what incentive is it for them to grow their account. They would have zero incentive since once they reach the next level of progession they would be at the bottom of the progresssion and thee other players woud have a huge advantage in terms or roster strength and size. How does Kabam benefit from a player who doesn't want to progess since it won't benefit. They can stay at their pgoression level and don't have to face the top players like KT1, Legacy , Beroman, etc. This is like a dream scenario for the lower accounts.
What is your idea of a system that's fair for everyone?
In an ideal situation, Players of relatively equal footing would come up against each other until they meet stronger and stronger competition and either succeed, or fizzle out. That's a natural limit. It's easy to acclimatize and progress with that over time. This idea that they need to be thrown in the deep end from the get-go is just chest beating as far as I'm concerned. It's ignorant to where they're at, and what they can actually compete with, with reasonable progress over time.
Welcome to the ladder. Just wait until you hit platinum and start matching against paragons with all r5 and r4 6*s in their deck because you can match anyone once you hit there.
Also battlegrounds is not designed to be fair, if you can't progress, then it is time to focus your efforts on story content and roster development
See, now that's dismissive. If people aren't expected to participate in the game mode, then they shouldn't be in it.
No one is expected to participate in Battlegrounds. Battlegrounds is a competition. Not everyone will necessarily want to participate in a competition. PvE game modes are designed to offer a specific kind of challenge, the kind where the player usually wins. In PvP game modes, on average players only win half the time, and for every player that wins two out of three, someone else has to lose two out of three.
Also, competitions are not meant to be fair in the sense of everyone having an even chance of winning. That's called flipping a coin. In every normal competition competitors are allowed to, and in fact expected to try to gain advantages over their competition. So long as those advantages follow the rules, those advantages are fair advantages and the overall competition is fair, even if individual competitive matches are not.
The FIDE World Cup of chess recently completed its tournament. This is one of the qualifying tournaments for the Candidates tournament - the tournament that decides who gets to challenge the world champion. There were 206 competitors that qualified for the World Cup tournament. The tournament is single elimination match format, players play in a bracketed tournament format. The highest rating discrepancy I recall was about 450 points of ELO between competitors. If I were to play a player rated 450 ratings points lower than me I would probably win about 97% of the time. Is this remotely fair? Yes, because they are all competing for a shot at the top, and to be the best you have to beat the best. Nobody complains.
People keep saying that Battlegrounds is so unfair that no other competition in existence would allow such disparate match ups. But in fact, *every* competition does. The most lopsided Superbowl was 55 to 10, and it wasn't even that close. Tiger Woods won the US Open in 2000 by 15 strokes. If you build that much of an advantage over the competition, you just destroy the competition, and the competition has no choice but to lose. I remember watching Superbowl 24: that game was over in the second quarter. Denver could have put two extra guys on the field every play and it wouldn't have made a difference.
People who expect the competition to be hand picked to match their capabilities are using PvE mindsets to judge PvP game play. It is one of the reasons I believe PvP should always be incorporated into game designs from the start. It isn't a question of game design, it is a question of player psychology. If you don't teach your players what a competition is, they only learn what beating up the environment is like. They think it is fair for the player to bring as strong of a team as they want into the content. They don't believe the content should be allowed to respond in kind.
But in a competition, you have to assume anything you can do the other side can and will do better. And that includes bringing bazookas to a knife fight. And sometimes you're going to have to lose five in a row because the other guy wants to win five in a row more than you do.
You and I will always see differently on this. Yes, they're going to get overpowered eventually. No question. That doesn't mean it's tenet from the start. War is like that. We see how people have lost desire to play that mode. You may have strong feelings about that, but so do I.
I'm legitimately confused.
You said "In an ideal situation, Players of relatively equal footing would come up against each other until they meet stronger and stronger competition and either succeed, or fizzle out."
That literally describes how BGs is currently, but you're arguing against it.
Right now, lower level accounts face similar accounts from the beginning up til around Gold or Platinum, then they meet the stronger competition you referenced and "fizzle out".
Through your own description of an ideal situation, the current BG matchmaking design is perfect.
This also means that newer Paragon players in Gold and Silver would facing against whales and more experience Paragon accounts will be in the same boat as OP. How is this fair that a Paragon account with 1 million rating be up against a account who has a stacked account. The newer Paragon or smaller Paragon accounts would have a very small to no chance of winning.
You keep defending the fair play for all but what is fair to one isn't always view as fair to another. There is a minimum two sides to every story. One side that BG match should be more fair as in account size wise, The other is why should small accounts be able to progess to the top of the BG ranking and be rewarded like the top palyer if they only face similar competition.
In your scenario @GroundedWisdom, skill would be more of a deciding factor which would make sense, but why would a game developer allow this to happen without a different set of rewards. If an uncollected can become the top player just by playing similar accounts, what incentive is it for them to grow their account. They would have zero incentive since once they reach the next level of progession they would be at the bottom of the progresssion and thee other players woud have a huge advantage in terms or roster strength and size. How does Kabam benefit from a player who doesn't want to progess since it won't benefit. They can stay at their pgoression level and don't have to face the top players like KT1, Legacy , Beroman, etc. This is like a dream scenario for the lower accounts.
What is your idea of a system that's fair for everyone?
In an ideal situation, Players of relatively equal footing would come up against each other until they meet stronger and stronger competition and either succeed, or fizzle out. That's a natural limit. It's easy to acclimatize and progress with that over time. This idea that they need to be thrown in the deep end from the get-go is just chest beating as far as I'm concerned. It's ignorant to where they're at, and what they can actually compete with, with reasonable progress over time.
Welcome to the ladder. Just wait until you hit platinum and start matching against paragons with all r5 and r4 6*s in their deck because you can match anyone once you hit there.
Also battlegrounds is not designed to be fair, if you can't progress, then it is time to focus your efforts on story content and roster development
See, now that's dismissive. If people aren't expected to participate in the game mode, then they shouldn't be in it.
No one is expected to participate in Battlegrounds. Battlegrounds is a competition. Not everyone will necessarily want to participate in a competition. PvE game modes are designed to offer a specific kind of challenge, the kind where the player usually wins. In PvP game modes, on average players only win half the time, and for every player that wins two out of three, someone else has to lose two out of three.
Also, competitions are not meant to be fair in the sense of everyone having an even chance of winning. That's called flipping a coin. In every normal competition competitors are allowed to, and in fact expected to try to gain advantages over their competition. So long as those advantages follow the rules, those advantages are fair advantages and the overall competition is fair, even if individual competitive matches are not.
The FIDE World Cup of chess recently completed its tournament. This is one of the qualifying tournaments for the Candidates tournament - the tournament that decides who gets to challenge the world champion. There were 206 competitors that qualified for the World Cup tournament. The tournament is single elimination match format, players play in a bracketed tournament format. The highest rating discrepancy I recall was about 450 points of ELO between competitors. If I were to play a player rated 450 ratings points lower than me I would probably win about 97% of the time. Is this remotely fair? Yes, because they are all competing for a shot at the top, and to be the best you have to beat the best. Nobody complains.
People keep saying that Battlegrounds is so unfair that no other competition in existence would allow such disparate match ups. But in fact, *every* competition does. The most lopsided Superbowl was 55 to 10, and it wasn't even that close. Tiger Woods won the US Open in 2000 by 15 strokes. If you build that much of an advantage over the competition, you just destroy the competition, and the competition has no choice but to lose. I remember watching Superbowl 24: that game was over in the second quarter. Denver could have put two extra guys on the field every play and it wouldn't have made a difference.
People who expect the competition to be hand picked to match their capabilities are using PvE mindsets to judge PvP game play. It is one of the reasons I believe PvP should always be incorporated into game designs from the start. It isn't a question of game design, it is a question of player psychology. If you don't teach your players what a competition is, they only learn what beating up the environment is like. They think it is fair for the player to bring as strong of a team as they want into the content. They don't believe the content should be allowed to respond in kind.
But in a competition, you have to assume anything you can do the other side can and will do better. And that includes bringing bazookas to a knife fight. And sometimes you're going to have to lose five in a row because the other guy wants to win five in a row more than you do.
You and I will always see differently on this. Yes, they're going to get overpowered eventually. No question. That doesn't mean it's tenet from the start. War is like that. We see how people have lost desire to play that mode. You may have strong feelings about that, but so do I.
I'm legitimately confused.
You said "In an ideal situation, Players of relatively equal footing would come up against each other until they meet stronger and stronger competition and either succeed, or fizzle out."
That literally describes how BGs is currently, but you're arguing against it.
Ironically, that's not what's happening. What's happening is much better for lower progress players. They *should* match against "equal competition" to start, and then be forced to face increasingly difficult competition as they win. They don't. Instead, they face not-increasingly difficult competition. Their difficulty doesn't go up as they win and move up like it should. It is arbitrarily kept low to HELP them. When this protection disappears their difficulty then jumps upward quickly, and this is seen as unfair.
We could solve this instantly. Simply remove the protection sooner. If the protection went away in Bronze 2, lower progress players would no longer face a wall at Platinum. Instead, they would face harder and harder competition right from the start. Silver 3 would be harder than Bronze 1. Gold 2 would be harder than Gold 3. Before they hit the wall in Platinum they would run into a speedbump in Bronze 2, a step stone in Bronze 1, a hurdle in Silver 2, and by the time they reached Gold 3 they'd have to leap over a high jump to get to Gold 2. They would not see a sudden wall in Platinum, because they would never reach Platinum.
They keep asking for a fairer competition curve. I hope one day everyone who asks for it gets it. Unfortunately, there's no way to give it to them without damaging the experience of a lot of other players who aren't complaining about it. If there was, I would push that button now. On camera, live streamed, with a giant smile on my face. And then I would set it on fire so no one else could ever switch it back.
I don't want much better progress for anyone. Nor am I advocating for completely equal Matches throughout the competition. I can see the issue. Although, I'd argue that's more rooted in entitlement than the people wanting fair Matches. People feel entitled to be ahead because they're "bigger". That's neither here nor there. I was asked what my idea of a system would be. I answered. Quite frankly, telling people to kick rocks because it's a competition is a rude response to the fact that they're upset. Let them be upset. We don't have to tell them to get good, that they've been given a free ride, that they're acting entitled to the Rewards, on and on. There is always a better alternative to just throwing everyone in pell-mell and waiting for some semblance of balance. Hell, you want to know who's the best? Give everyone the same Roster strength. Not that I particularly think that's the best way to go, but I'd venture that would solve the whole "skill" argument. Regardless, this is the system we're looking at, and this is the problem as I see it. It isn't enough in these situations that a system is implemented that will allow Players to streamline their progress. It isn't enough that the Win/Loss ratio is set up to allow skill. Now we have to make it less Tokens, more Tiers, and completely separate anyone who makes it to the GC this Season so they can claim a stake Season after Season. Make it harder, give people their placement, and allow them to monopolize it. It's a repeat of other systems that exist in the game that don't allow anyone to progress beyond what the status quo deems deserving. So you have anyone mid to lower grinding every month for crumbs, hoping to do better next Season. Only, the system dictates that, and as long as someone else claims their spot month after month, no one really does any better. That's what happens when a "competition" is designed for, and around, the top demographic alone. War 2.0.
I have seen people waiting for seeding system, not sure what they are expecting; but in a ladder system it won't work as some lower players expect. In a ladder system, somebody's roof is someone else's floor.
I don't want much better progress for anyone. Nor am I advocating for completely equal Matches throughout the competition. I can see the issue. Although, I'd argue that's more rooted in entitlement than the people wanting fair Matches. People feel entitled to be ahead because they're "bigger". That's neither here nor there. I was asked what my idea of a system would be. I answered. Quite frankly, telling people to kick rocks because it's a competition is a rude response to the fact that they're upset. Let them be upset. We don't have to tell them to get good, that they've been given a free ride, that they're acting entitled to the Rewards, on and on. There is always a better alternative to just throwing everyone in pell-mell and waiting for some semblance of balance. Hell, you want to know who's the best? Give everyone the same Roster strength. Not that I particularly think that's the best way to go, but I'd venture that would solve the whole "skill" argument. Regardless, this is the system we're looking at, and this is the problem as I see it. It isn't enough in these situations that a system is implemented that will allow Players to streamline their progress. It isn't enough that the Win/Loss ratio is set up to allow skill. Now we have to make it less Tokens, more Tiers, and completely separate anyone who makes it to the GC this Season so they can claim a stake Season after Season. Make it harder, give people their placement, and allow them to monopolize it. It's a repeat of other systems that exist in the game that don't allow anyone to progress beyond what the status quo deems deserving. So you have anyone mid to lower grinding every month for crumbs, hoping to do better next Season. Only, the system dictates that, and as long as someone else claims their spot month after month, no one really does any better. That's what happens when a "competition" is designed for, and around, the top demographic alone. War 2.0.
Well you're right about one thing. Giving everyone the exact same roster in BGs would be the most "fair" way to do it.
Unfortunately, it would also be an absolutely foolish way to do it, cause that would completely disincentivize folks ranking up unique attackers/defenders from their own rosters to support the meta. Ultimately, this "fair" scenario would also be incredibly boring to folks with strong rosters, and completely disingenuous to those with weaker rosters.
I can't help but notice that you completely glazed over the fact that the "ideal" system you described effectively matches how the system works now. What's the deal with that?
At what point in the competition, that is for the exact same rewards as everyone else, do you propose is the "right" time for a 2M account to gave a 6M account?? We all agree that doesn't happen in Bronze. As BGs are today, that's likely to happen in Platinum. You obviously disagree with that though. Would you have it happen in Vibranium? Or would you prefer it not happen until GC?
Ultimately, the "problem", as you describe it (though I suspect most would disagree) will still happen. The 2M account is going to begin facing much higher accounts where skill is much less of a factor and roster size/development is going to default as a win for the bigger account.
It seems to me, from what I've seen you say, that you're okay with small accounts facing much larger accounts, but you would like that to happen much much later in the competition. If that's the case, then the only difference is the can is being kicked further down the road allowing those weaker accounts to get much better rewards.
Now I have seen you vehemently disagree with the notion that this is about rewards, so if it's not about the rewards, and you still inevitably face stronger competition, than what does it matter if that happens in VT Platinum or GC Uru?
Semi-related, stop implying that the "elitists" are suggesting the game mode isn't designed for lower level accounts. Not a single person has ever even implied that. Everyone is welcome to play, and get rewards from the game mode. The implication has always been that those lower accounts shouldn't be isolated from fighting stronger accounts, because as has been stated every time a thread is opened on this topic, BGs is a competition, where everyone is playing for the same rewards. And if everyone is playing for the same rewards, everyone should be subject to fighting everyone.
What you're really asking for, without specifically asking for it, is BG leagues, where different account sizes can only join their assigned league, and the overall rewards in each league are adjusted so that the minor league isn't getting greater rewards than the major league.
Unfortunately, that system won't work, cause then you don't have the sizable player base required in each league to ensure folks aren't waiting 5-10 minutes for a matchup anytime they queue one up.
A respectful response if I ever heard one. You're absolutely right. I'm not the best at the game. I'm middle-of-the-road. I'm not in a Top Alliance, not doing Map 8 AQ, not the best at anything here. I don't know everything there is to know about the game. What I do know, and I would bet dollars to cents on it, is human beings. I know people. I know human behavior. I know what constitutes just enough to motivate people, and what becomes a drain. I know how the human beings who are behind those "loser" Accounts (as you so eloquently put it) are going to react over time. Watch and see. Also, if you feel that intrinsically better than people who are in lower progression in a game, perhaps seeking help might be beneficial.
Kabam, for the love of GOD, please give this man GC rewards already! I am baffled by how suddenly serious you are about entering GC. You have been playing this game longer than most of us, and I know you are a very, very casual player. So, why is there this non-stop nagging about GC being so difficult?
This is the question we all have about him lol. Bro doesn’t even play seriously and acting as if he’s a true representative of the player base.
Well that's been one of my points all along. If you allow those Players to participate and make it fruitless, they're going to drop off. No one wants to play something they're not able to have much progress in at all. Sure, some people will keep trying. Not when you make anything from Gold 1 and up nothing short of consecutive Wins. W-W-L-W-L-L-W-W-L-W......ad nauseum. My argument isn't solely about Rewards, but they're always a factor in these cases. It's impossible to discuss a competition without them. That isn't an indication I want much smaller Players to have more. Would I be okay with that? If they earned them, absolutely. That's just not what I'm talking about. This idea that lower Accounts don't deserve to move ahead is just not in my vernacular. I've been beaten by smaller Accounts. I would suspect they're Alts for seasoned Players in many cases. Sometimes they get lucky and just play better than me. It happens, and I don't take personal injury from it. I'm not saying I think lower Players should get better Rewards. I don't know why that keeps being the focus. I'm not saying higher Players should either. I'm saying people SHOULD have a reasonable start to their journey and earn the Rewards they earn. You can't have a competition and then weight it so heavily to one side, and call it a competition. GC, sure. Both VT and GC, and that's just greedy.
Well that's been one of my points all along. If you allow those Players to participate and make it fruitless, they're going to drop off. No one wants to play something they're not able to have much progress in at all. Sure, some people will keep trying. Not when you make anything from Gold 1 and up nothing short of consecutive Wins. W-W-L-W-L-L-W-W-L-W......ad nauseum. My argument isn't solely about Rewards, but they're always a factor in these cases. It's impossible to discuss a competition without them. That isn't an indication I want much smaller Players to have more. Would I be okay with that? If they earned them, absolutely. That's just not what I'm talking about. This idea that lower Accounts don't deserve to move ahead is just not in my vernacular. I've been beaten by smaller Accounts. I would suspect they're Alts for seasoned Players in many cases. Sometimes they get lucky and just play better than me. It happens, and I don't take personal injury from it. I'm not saying I think lower Players should get better Rewards. I don't know why that keeps being the focus. I'm not saying higher Players should either. I'm saying people SHOULD have a reasonable start to their journey and earn the Rewards they earn. You can't have a competition and then weight it so heavily to one side, and call it a competition. GC, sure. Both VT and GC, and that's just greedy.
You can earn 17,100 trophy tokens climbing from the start up to Platinum, where lower accounts tend to hit a wall.
If they don't try to race there in one day, instead choosing to play a few matches each time the objectives pop up, they can probably get a few thousand more. Then even when they hit their wall, they can still compete to get the completion objectives each time they show.
I'd venture to say that even a low level account could get about 25,000 tokens in a season. That's not even taking into account the solo and alliance event quests that give even more rewards.
That number of tokens can get plenty of t5b, t2a, t4c, etc, necessary to rank up champs for the next season.
So where is this notion that low level accounts are being excluded from rewards coming from?
Is it that they're not getting enough? If so, what's the right amount of rewards for an Uncollected or Cav account to receive in a single season?
I'd suggest that this is perfectly reasonable, as the goal is NOT to catapult these players accounts so high that they steamroll the story content designed for progression and learning how the game is played.
I doubt people are brute forcing their way through. Perhaps they are, but eventually they will hit a roadblock that way. Personally, I resort to Shields when I'm one Win away from advancing. Quite honestly, it's less infuriating than up and down and up and down. Kabam has determined that people are ready when they meet the requirements. Unless they change, that's what we're looking at.
Some people just go on 15+ match winning streaks to get out of the VT. That's what I did and would recommend to everyone else. Of course to do that I've spent years building my roster and skills by clearing all the content in the game. If someone chooses not to put in the time and effort, I don't want to hear their sob story about no being able to compete in a competition.
Comments
You're absolutely right. I'm not the best at the game. I'm middle-of-the-road. I'm not in a Top Alliance, not doing Map 8 AQ, not the best at anything here. I don't know everything there is to know about the game.
What I do know, and I would bet dollars to cents on it, is human beings. I know people. I know human behavior. I know what constitutes just enough to motivate people, and what becomes a drain. I know how the human beings who are behind those "loser" Accounts (as you so eloquently put it) are going to react over time.
Watch and see. Also, if you feel that intrinsically better than people who are in lower progression in a game, perhaps seeking help might be beneficial.
The sad thing is that with open matchmaking in addition to the new tiered starts it would only last one season of low players facing top players for it all to balance out.
Also, competitions are not meant to be fair in the sense of everyone having an even chance of winning. That's called flipping a coin. In every normal competition competitors are allowed to, and in fact expected to try to gain advantages over their competition. So long as those advantages follow the rules, those advantages are fair advantages and the overall competition is fair, even if individual competitive matches are not.
The FIDE World Cup of chess recently completed its tournament. This is one of the qualifying tournaments for the Candidates tournament - the tournament that decides who gets to challenge the world champion. There were 206 competitors that qualified for the World Cup tournament. The tournament is single elimination match format, players play in a bracketed tournament format. The highest rating discrepancy I recall was about 450 points of ELO between competitors. If I were to play a player rated 450 ratings points lower than me I would probably win about 97% of the time. Is this remotely fair? Yes, because they are all competing for a shot at the top, and to be the best you have to beat the best. Nobody complains.
People keep saying that Battlegrounds is so unfair that no other competition in existence would allow such disparate match ups. But in fact, *every* competition does. The most lopsided Superbowl was 55 to 10, and it wasn't even that close. Tiger Woods won the US Open in 2000 by 15 strokes. If you build that much of an advantage over the competition, you just destroy the competition, and the competition has no choice but to lose. I remember watching Superbowl 24: that game was over in the second quarter. Denver could have put two extra guys on the field every play and it wouldn't have made a difference.
People who expect the competition to be hand picked to match their capabilities are using PvE mindsets to judge PvP game play. It is one of the reasons I believe PvP should always be incorporated into game designs from the start. It isn't a question of game design, it is a question of player psychology. If you don't teach your players what a competition is, they only learn what beating up the environment is like. They think it is fair for the player to bring as strong of a team as they want into the content. They don't believe the content should be allowed to respond in kind.
But in a competition, you have to assume anything you can do the other side can and will do better. And that includes bringing bazookas to a knife fight. And sometimes you're going to have to lose five in a row because the other guy wants to win five in a row more than you do.
You keep defending the fair play for all but what is fair to one isn't always view as fair to another. There is a minimum two sides to every story. One side that BG match should be more fair as in account size wise, The other is why should small accounts be able to progess to the top of the BG ranking and be rewarded like the top palyer if they only face similar competition.
In your scenario @GroundedWisdom, skill would be more of a deciding factor which would make sense, but why would a game developer allow this to happen without a different set of rewards. If an uncollected can become the top player just by playing similar accounts, what incentive is it for them to grow their account. They would have zero incentive since once they reach the next level of progession they would be at the bottom of the progresssion and thee other players woud have a huge advantage in terms or roster strength and size. How does Kabam benefit from a player who doesn't want to progess since it won't benefit. They can stay at their pgoression level and don't have to face the top players like KT1, Legacy , Beroman, etc. This is like a dream scenario for the lower accounts.
What is your idea of a system that's fair for everyone?
This idea that they need to be thrown in the deep end from the get-go is just chest beating as far as I'm concerned. It's ignorant to where they're at, and what they can actually compete with, with reasonable progress over time. You and I will always see differently on this. Yes, they're going to get overpowered eventually. No question. That doesn't mean it's tenet from the start. War is like that. We see how people have lost desire to play that mode. You may have strong feelings about that, but so do I.
You should start changing the "People" for "I"... This long off season upset a lot of "People" that didn't have war as a game mode. You define yourself as a mid level player, makes sense to lose interest on grounds you can't succeed without a handicap, both being PVP aspects.
Moral highgrounds are a funny thing, talk about respect, about the human side, being a better person. Never heard a positive story about quitters.
I'm talking about the same thing everyone else is. We may disagree or agree, but most of us want the same things, really. We want what's best for the overall.
You are talking about the same thing as a UC when you have 7-8 years of experience, ITS NOT THE SAME
Battlegrounds is dog eat dog ranking. Kabam could certainly make a "Paragon bracket with the best rewards" and people who's rosters are easier in progression face off against eachother, but then get far lessor rewards. That is typically what most modes are... and people then complain why they can't try their way at higher modes.
There is some, ability, but effectively no equivalent to revive farming / unit man... and brute forcing your way through something "before you are ready" in battlegrounds. That's the point of the mode.
You may not like to hear it... but for at least this one mode... the proverbial "just get better" is the answer. If you don't like it... there are plenty of other modes out there to play.
Kabam has determined that people are ready when they meet the requirements. Unless they change, that's what we're looking at.
It is not my opinion that competitions work this way. All competitions work this way, because it is a defining property of all competitions. Everything that works the way some people claim it should work, with the sport carefully selecting opponents so as to prevent overmatched meetings, is a staged activity suitable for kindergartens and senior living spaces. It simply does not happen in anything that dares to claim itself to be a competition.
You said "In an ideal situation, Players of relatively equal footing would come up against each other until they meet stronger and stronger competition and either succeed, or fizzle out."
That literally describes how BGs is currently, but you're arguing against it.
Right now, lower level accounts face similar accounts from the beginning up til around Gold or Platinum, then they meet the stronger competition you referenced and "fizzle out".
Through your own description of an ideal situation, the current BG matchmaking design is perfect.
What's wrong?
We could solve this instantly. Simply remove the protection sooner. If the protection went away in Bronze 2, lower progress players would no longer face a wall at Platinum. Instead, they would face harder and harder competition right from the start. Silver 3 would be harder than Bronze 1. Gold 2 would be harder than Gold 3. Before they hit the wall in Platinum they would run into a speedbump in Bronze 2, a step stone in Bronze 1, a hurdle in Silver 2, and by the time they reached Gold 3 they'd have to leap over a high jump to get to Gold 2. They would not see a sudden wall in Platinum, because they would never reach Platinum.
They keep asking for a fairer competition curve. I hope one day everyone who asks for it gets it. Unfortunately, there's no way to give it to them without damaging the experience of a lot of other players who aren't complaining about it. If there was, I would push that button now. On camera, live streamed, with a giant smile on my face. And then I would set it on fire so no one else could ever switch it back.
I was asked what my idea of a system would be. I answered. Quite frankly, telling people to kick rocks because it's a competition is a rude response to the fact that they're upset. Let them be upset. We don't have to tell them to get good, that they've been given a free ride, that they're acting entitled to the Rewards, on and on.
There is always a better alternative to just throwing everyone in pell-mell and waiting for some semblance of balance. Hell, you want to know who's the best? Give everyone the same Roster strength. Not that I particularly think that's the best way to go, but I'd venture that would solve the whole "skill" argument.
Regardless, this is the system we're looking at, and this is the problem as I see it. It isn't enough in these situations that a system is implemented that will allow Players to streamline their progress. It isn't enough that the Win/Loss ratio is set up to allow skill. Now we have to make it less Tokens, more Tiers, and completely separate anyone who makes it to the GC this Season so they can claim a stake Season after Season. Make it harder, give people their placement, and allow them to monopolize it.
It's a repeat of other systems that exist in the game that don't allow anyone to progress beyond what the status quo deems deserving. So you have anyone mid to lower grinding every month for crumbs, hoping to do better next Season. Only, the system dictates that, and as long as someone else claims their spot month after month, no one really does any better.
That's what happens when a "competition" is designed for, and around, the top demographic alone. War 2.0.
Unfortunately, it would also be an absolutely foolish way to do it, cause that would completely disincentivize folks ranking up unique attackers/defenders from their own rosters to support the meta. Ultimately, this "fair" scenario would also be incredibly boring to folks with strong rosters, and completely disingenuous to those with weaker rosters.
I can't help but notice that you completely glazed over the fact that the "ideal" system you described effectively matches how the system works now. What's the deal with that?
At what point in the competition, that is for the exact same rewards as everyone else, do you propose is the "right" time for a 2M account to gave a 6M account?? We all agree that doesn't happen in Bronze. As BGs are today, that's likely to happen in Platinum. You obviously disagree with that though. Would you have it happen in Vibranium? Or would you prefer it not happen until GC?
Ultimately, the "problem", as you describe it (though I suspect most would disagree) will still happen. The 2M account is going to begin facing much higher accounts where skill is much less of a factor and roster size/development is going to default as a win for the bigger account.
It seems to me, from what I've seen you say, that you're okay with small accounts facing much larger accounts, but you would like that to happen much much later in the competition. If that's the case, then the only difference is the can is being kicked further down the road allowing those weaker accounts to get much better rewards.
Now I have seen you vehemently disagree with the notion that this is about rewards, so if it's not about the rewards, and you still inevitably face stronger competition, than what does it matter if that happens in VT Platinum or GC Uru?
Semi-related, stop implying that the "elitists" are suggesting the game mode isn't designed for lower level accounts. Not a single person has ever even implied that. Everyone is welcome to play, and get rewards from the game mode. The implication has always been that those lower accounts shouldn't be isolated from fighting stronger accounts, because as has been stated every time a thread is opened on this topic, BGs is a competition, where everyone is playing for the same rewards. And if everyone is playing for the same rewards, everyone should be subject to fighting everyone.
What you're really asking for, without specifically asking for it, is BG leagues, where different account sizes can only join their assigned league, and the overall rewards in each league are adjusted so that the minor league isn't getting greater rewards than the major league.
Unfortunately, that system won't work, cause then you don't have the sizable player base required in each league to ensure folks aren't waiting 5-10 minutes for a matchup anytime they queue one up.
My argument isn't solely about Rewards, but they're always a factor in these cases. It's impossible to discuss a competition without them. That isn't an indication I want much smaller Players to have more. Would I be okay with that? If they earned them, absolutely. That's just not what I'm talking about. This idea that lower Accounts don't deserve to move ahead is just not in my vernacular. I've been beaten by smaller Accounts. I would suspect they're Alts for seasoned Players in many cases. Sometimes they get lucky and just play better than me. It happens, and I don't take personal injury from it.
I'm not saying I think lower Players should get better Rewards. I don't know why that keeps being the focus. I'm not saying higher Players should either. I'm saying people SHOULD have a reasonable start to their journey and earn the Rewards they earn. You can't have a competition and then weight it so heavily to one side, and call it a competition. GC, sure. Both VT and GC, and that's just greedy.
If they don't try to race there in one day, instead choosing to play a few matches each time the objectives pop up, they can probably get a few thousand more. Then even when they hit their wall, they can still compete to get the completion objectives each time they show.
I'd venture to say that even a low level account could get about 25,000 tokens in a season. That's not even taking into account the solo and alliance event quests that give even more rewards.
That number of tokens can get plenty of t5b, t2a, t4c, etc, necessary to rank up champs for the next season.
So where is this notion that low level accounts are being excluded from rewards coming from?
Is it that they're not getting enough? If so, what's the right amount of rewards for an Uncollected or Cav account to receive in a single season?
I'd suggest that this is perfectly reasonable, as the goal is NOT to catapult these players accounts so high that they steamroll the story content designed for progression and learning how the game is played.