Honest,y I have no idea what I'm going to do when players who will never make it to my level quit playing BGs. All those matches that would never happen will go away. It will have a HUGE affect on my and others at the top.
Yes, because they never meet anyone in Plat, and the only priority is when you look for a Match.
I'll never see them. They'll be facing everyone else who makes it to Plat 1 in week 3 or 4 and have no effect on those who start in Plat 1.
Honest,y I have no idea what I'm going to do when players who will never make it to my level quit playing BGs. All those matches that would never happen will go away. It will have a HUGE affect on my and others at the top.
Yes, because they never meet anyone in Plat, and the only priority is when you look for a Match.
I think your main concern is that wothout them you won't be able to advance; because in 10 seasons i might have played a small accounts 10 times in 10 seasons. I don't get a even match protection from bronze to plat... Whats 1 or 2 tiers of the same going to change anyway.
Well you're right about one thing. Giving everyone the exact same roster in BGs would be the most "fair" way to do it.
No, its not. Some people have better reflexes. Some people have better eyesight. Some people have better phones, faster internet, have been playing the game longer, have more time to read champion abilities or watch Youtube videos. It isn't fair. The most fair way to do it would be for the game to flip a coin, heads player one wins, tails player two wins. That would be the absolute fairest way to decide who wins a BG match, in that no one would have any advantage over any other player.
This would no longer be a competition in any normal sense, but it would be fair.
Well you're right about one thing. Giving everyone the exact same roster in BGs would be the most "fair" way to do it.
No, its not. Some people have better reflexes. Some people have better eyesight. Some people have better phones, faster internet, have been playing the game longer, have more time to read champion abilities or watch Youtube videos. It isn't fair. The most fair way to do it would be for the game to flip a coin, heads player one wins, tails player two wins. That would be the absolute fairest way to decide who wins a BG match, in that no one would have any advantage over any other player.
This would no longer be a competition in any normal sense, but it would be fair.
That's not even a competition its a game of luck. A PVP competition has a human factor, Player VS Player like you have said before has no fairness, and if anything the attempts to mak e it fair should be aimed up and not down. People should be rewarded for working hard on roster and content, not reward less experienced players out of pity.
Well you're right about one thing. Giving everyone the exact same roster in BGs would be the most "fair" way to do it.
No, its not. Some people have better reflexes. Some people have better eyesight. Some people have better phones, faster internet, have been playing the game longer, have more time to read champion abilities or watch Youtube videos. It isn't fair. The most fair way to do it would be for the game to flip a coin, heads player one wins, tails player two wins. That would be the absolute fairest way to decide who wins a BG match, in that no one would have any advantage over any other player.
This would no longer be a competition in any normal sense, but it would be fair.
That's not even a competition its a game of luck. A PVP competition has a human factor, Player VS Player like you have said before has no fairness, and if anything the attempts to mak e it fair should be aimed up and not down. People should be rewarded for working hard on roster and content, not reward less experienced players out of pity.
People should be rewarded for performance in the competition, not performance in the competition plus everything else they've done. Now, there's something to be said for Rewards that are appropriate to where a Player is at, but a Tb that outperforms a Paragon should be rewarded the same as a Paragon that relies on having a few more R5s.
Well you're right about one thing. Giving everyone the exact same roster in BGs would be the most "fair" way to do it.
No, its not. Some people have better reflexes. Some people have better eyesight. Some people have better phones, faster internet, have been playing the game longer, have more time to read champion abilities or watch Youtube videos. It isn't fair. The most fair way to do it would be for the game to flip a coin, heads player one wins, tails player two wins. That would be the absolute fairest way to decide who wins a BG match, in that no one would have any advantage over any other player.
This would no longer be a competition in any normal sense, but it would be fair.
That's not even a competition its a game of luck. A PVP competition has a human factor, Player VS Player like you have said before has no fairness, and if anything the attempts to mak e it fair should be aimed up and not down. People should be rewarded for working hard on roster and content, not reward less experienced players out of pity.
People should be rewarded for performance in the competition, not performance in the competition plus everything else they've done. Now, there's something to be said for Rewards that are appropriate to where a Player is at, but a Tb that outperforms a Paragon should be rewarded the same as a Paragon that relies on having a few more R5s.
That's skill it should be rewarded too.. Being lazy and not doing content should not be rewarded. An no Paragon relies on r5s to win, and you probably shouldn't be talking about what Paragons do, when you are not one.
Well you're right about one thing. Giving everyone the exact same roster in BGs would be the most "fair" way to do it.
No, its not. Some people have better reflexes. Some people have better eyesight. Some people have better phones, faster internet, have been playing the game longer, have more time to read champion abilities or watch Youtube videos. It isn't fair. The most fair way to do it would be for the game to flip a coin, heads player one wins, tails player two wins. That would be the absolute fairest way to decide who wins a BG match, in that no one would have any advantage over any other player.
This would no longer be a competition in any normal sense, but it would be fair.
That's not even a competition its a game of luck. A PVP competition has a human factor, Player VS Player like you have said before has no fairness, and if anything the attempts to mak e it fair should be aimed up and not down. People should be rewarded for working hard on roster and content, not reward less experienced players out of pity.
Well, yes.
Fairness is ultimately a function of the rules. Every competitor of every competition is expected to do anything and everything within the rules to gain an advantage over their competition. Gaining advantages is what competition is all about. As Sun Tzu wrote, every battle is won before it is fought.
Fairness is an adjective. We don't want fair fights, we want a fair competition. Fair fights are fights where both sides have an equal chance of winning. Fair competitions are competitions in which competitors are judged on their competitive strength and performance and generate commensurate results.
In MCOC roster development is as much a part of the game as tappy tappy on the screen. Neutralizing that advantage in Battlegrounds is no different from making Paragon players play with one hand tied behind their backs to make things fairer for the players who haven't learned to parry yet.
First of all, enough with the digs. Secondly, we're talking about a competition that measures performance within that competition. If you're talking about a true measure, then someone who outperforms someone else who relies on an overpowering Roster is more deserving in my opinion. What's lazy is resting on laurels.
First of all, enough with the digs. Secondly, we're talking about a competition that measures performance within that competition. If you're talking about a true measure, then someone who outperforms someone else who relies on an overpowering Roster is more deserving in my opinion. What's lazy is resting on laurels.
Well finally welcome to being a Paragon, about time. Lazy is resting on laurels I agree.. like complaining about the competition changing because someone made it to GC on the 2 easiest seasons and now they can't. Lazy is being a 7-8 year player and becoming Paragon after 1.5 years of release.. Congratulations on being Paragon.
Well you're right about one thing. Giving everyone the exact same roster in BGs would be the most "fair" way to do it.
No, its not. Some people have better reflexes. Some people have better eyesight. Some people have better phones, faster internet, have been playing the game longer, have more time to read champion abilities or watch Youtube videos. It isn't fair. The most fair way to do it would be for the game to flip a coin, heads player one wins, tails player two wins. That would be the absolute fairest way to decide who wins a BG match, in that no one would have any advantage over any other player.
This would no longer be a competition in any normal sense, but it would be fair.
That's not even a competition its a game of luck. A PVP competition has a human factor, Player VS Player like you have said before has no fairness, and if anything the attempts to mak e it fair should be aimed up and not down. People should be rewarded for working hard on roster and content, not reward less experienced players out of pity.
People should be rewarded for performance in the competition, not performance in the competition plus everything else they've done. Now, there's something to be said for Rewards that are appropriate to where a Player is at, but a Tb that outperforms a Paragon should be rewarded the same as a Paragon that relies on having a few more R5s.
This makes literally 0 sense.
How, exactly, do you determine who 'outperforms' who in a competition if not who wins or who loses?
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Who has earned it more?
Is the a competition or a kindergarten?
If it's a competition then player B earns the victory. If it's a kindergarten then both players get a trophy and happy meal on the ride home.
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Who has earned it more?
Is the a competition or a kindergarten?
If it's a competition then player B earns the victory. If it's a kindergarten then both players get a trophy and happy meal on the ride home.
That's not what I asked. We're talking about Players who perform better vs. Players who just rely on their Roster and put in mediocre effort. Not Shining Time Station.
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Well you're right about one thing. Giving everyone the exact same roster in BGs would be the most "fair" way to do it.
No, its not. Some people have better reflexes. Some people have better eyesight. Some people have better phones, faster internet, have been playing the game longer, have more time to read champion abilities or watch Youtube videos. It isn't fair. The most fair way to do it would be for the game to flip a coin, heads player one wins, tails player two wins. That would be the absolute fairest way to decide who wins a BG match, in that no one would have any advantage over any other player.
This would no longer be a competition in any normal sense, but it would be fair.
That's not even a competition its a game of luck. A PVP competition has a human factor, Player VS Player like you have said before has no fairness, and if anything the attempts to mak e it fair should be aimed up and not down. People should be rewarded for working hard on roster and content, not reward less experienced players out of pity.
People should be rewarded for performance in the competition, not performance in the competition plus everything else they've done.
By that definition, please name an actual competition that exists on Earth.
By this definition, no Chess tournament is a competition. No organized sport I'm aware of is a competition. Formula 1 is not a competition. In every competition I'm aware of, competitors prepare before the actual competitive event to maximize their ability to win, and are rewarded for that preparation.
In MCOC, the player's roster is the tools of competition. They are the race vehicles in NASCAR, they are yachts in America's Cup racing, the shoes in Olympic track and field. In top level Chess, grandmasters now study with computers to develop and memorize opening strategy. They are essentially bringing supercomputer strategy cheaat sheets in their heads, and if their opponent is unable to outthink the computer or somehow escape that memorized gameplay, they just lose.
Preparation is everything in a competition. Preparing skills, preparing strategy, preparing tools and equipment. The Indy 500 is not a competition between drivers going vroom vroom for 500 laps. The Indy 500 is a competition between driving teams. The car is just as much a part of the team as the driver and the pit crew. A better car offers an advantage. A fair advantage, because the car is part of the actual competitor. A good roster is a good racecar.
In American football, teams play with coaches that bring weeks of preparation to the game. A really well designed play can win a game for a team. They didn't design that play in the dirt with sticks during the game. It might have been concocted, tested, and practiced weeks before the game, maybe months before the game. An NFL game is not simply improvised on the field while the clock is running. The competitors are not being judged strictly by what they do in that moment. They are allowed to bring substantial advantages built up over weeks and months, and its all fair because why wouldn't they? It wouldn't occur to anyone to not do that because it wouldn't be fair to their competitors.
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Who has earned it more?
Is the a competition or a kindergarten?
If it's a competition then player B earns the victory. If it's a kindergarten then both players get a trophy and happy meal on the ride home.
That's not what I asked. We're talking about Players who perform better vs. Players who just rely on their Roster and put in mediocre effort. Not Shining Time Station.
That's exactly what you asked.
You want the player who loses to get a participation trophy like they're in kindergarten.
Here's what you're scenario looks like to me.
Player A casually plays the game and never pushes content or saves units for offers. They just can't be bothered to 100% Act 8 or do Carina's. Because of this, their champs and skills are underdeveloped and despite how hard they play they lose.
Player B finished all content as soon as it was released and was strategic with their spending and ranking. They've put a lot of time into building the perfect deck for each meta and know how to fight all the newest defenders. They get matched up with a TB and win easily because of all of the time and effort they've put into the game.
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Who has earned it more?
Player B put in much more effort than player A. All player A has done is tried cramming in all their studying in 1 day for the exam while player B has been studying all semester is well acquainted with the material.
In essence, you're ignoring all the time Player B has already put into the game and just shining the light on the small amount of time player A has put in. Any new player must face increasingly tough fights to hone in their skills, you don't get better at the game by just facing RoL WS.
Newer players will always and should always be at a disadvantage in a PvP gamemode. The game rewards Skill, roster strength, and game knowledge. You shouldn't ignore any of those 3 in a competitive PvP gamemode.
Also story content has literally never been easier, so if players lack roster strength, then they should put resources in towards beating the grandmaster so they can explore acts 7 and 8.
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Who has earned it more?
Is the a competition or a kindergarten?
If it's a competition then player B earns the victory. If it's a kindergarten then both players get a trophy and happy meal on the ride home.
That's not what I asked. We're talking about Players who perform better vs. Players who just rely on their Roster and put in mediocre effort. Not Shining Time Station.
That's exactly what you asked.
You want the player who loses to get a participation trophy like they're in kindergarten.
Here's what you're scenario looks like to me.
Player A casually plays the game and never pushes content or saves units for offers. They just can't be bothered to 100% Act 8 or do Carina's. Because of this, their champs and skills are underdeveloped and despite how hard they play they lose.
Player B finished all content as soon as it was released and was strategic with their spending and ranking. They've put a lot of time into building the perfect deck for each meta and know how to fight all the newest defenders. They get matched up with a TB and win easily because of all of the time and effort they've put into the game.
Who do you think really earned that victory?
In a sense, I think all of this is a kind of mental trap. Ultimately, the point to a competition is to settle such questions in the competition itself. We, or at least the game doesn't judge competitors based on *how* they win or lose, just *whether* they win or lose. If a player wins by miraculous play or by having a monster roster or both, its just a win.
We players can debate who deserves the win more. To a certain extent that sort of thing is fair game for speculative discussion. That sort of thing literally powers all of (American) college football. But the game itself awards wins if you win and losses if you lose, and how you did it doesn't matter, nor should it. The game should be an impartial arbiter of wins and losses, and shouldn't care by what legal path a player takes to get the win. The player should be free to take any legal path to victory, and the game should only enforce the limits necessary for fair play consistent with the game's values.
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Who has earned it more?
This has to be one of the most nonsensical things I have heard in a while. So, Student A didn't study, and partied all semester, but tried his best on the exam and ended up providing all incorrect answers. On the other hand, Student B studied throughout the semester and finished the exam well ahead of time. However, according to this perspective, both students should receive the same awards simply because Student A "tried" his best, even though Student B didn't have a "hard" time due to being well-prepared.
I have a theory—please hear me out. Could it be possible that GW is striving to reach the (disagree)100k milestone quickly? This could explain why he is presenting these seemingly illogical arguments. What are your thoughts?
Okay. Hypothetical. Not an exact scenario, but we'll run with it. Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes. Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Who has earned it more?
This has to be one of the most nonsensical things I have heard in a while. So, Student A didn't study, and partied all semester, but tried his best on the exam and ended up providing all incorrect answers. On the other hand, Student B studied throughout the semester and finished the exam well ahead of time. However, according to this perspective, both students should receive the same awards simply because Student A "tried" his best, even though Student B didn't have a "hard" time due to being well-prepared.
This is ultimately the logical consequence of the "A for effort" line of thinking. Preparation doesn't matter, only effort expended at the time matters.
One of the things I have had to do in my career is plan out complex operations during downtime. As someone who normally hates doing anything more than scribbling in a notebook, this is where I actually would script out everything down to every nut, bolt, wire, and bathroom break. I had plan A, plan B, and plan C all prepared. I could re-cable systems in the dark by feel using physical port charts. I had backups down and software prestaged from a week before. I used to do some pretty crazy prep back in the day.
Which made most of my downtime upgrades, migrations, and other work pretty boring and uneventful. This was problematic, because it never looked like I was working. It all looked too easy. To the point that some clients decided they didn't need me anymore and could do it all themselves. Which I was more than happy to let them try. Although I did always give them fair warning.
Those clients were doing what is being discussed here. Judging based on visible effort, not results. In the real world, this is very dangerous. And I know professionals who deliberately don't prepare as much as they should, because they *want* the actual job to look and execute longer and harder than it needs to be, in order to get the A for effort. And sometimes they set the client on fire, but amazingly the client often thanks them for being there to put out the fire.
I have a word to describe this part of my profession. But it is a word I am not allowed to use here.
Yes. The ever-present resorting to insults. Bottom line is, there are more Players in the competition than just the ones at the top. You can say it's a competition until the cows come home, but the more you marginalize their efforts and participation, the more you push them away from playing it at all. If you think that's inconsequential, then by all means. Keep pushing for BGs to be more and more exclusive. The reality is their progress matters to them just as much as your progress matters to you, and it's not enough for people to want to earn their own placement. They have to dictate what they think everyone else deserves as well. Which, among the most competitive minds, is nothing. That's useless when considering the overall balance. It's a competition! It's a competition! Great. We've established that. Everyone playing it has established that. The fairness of it is in question, and you can use all or nothing statements and claims that I'm pushing for participation trophies and easy Rewards, and all that. That's not the case. We all know what a fair competition is. Throwing people among Matches that they can't get past at the start of the competition isn't it. That sink or swim mentality doesn't work in this context. They're not playing in the Arena against set limits they can work towards over time. They're playing in a competition that increases Season after Season. If you are operating under the idea that they'll just get better as they bash around Bronze and Silver, you're ignoring the other Players who will progress much faster. I'm sorry that some people don't care if others fall out, but I do. I want people to be challenged enough to keep trying, not be told to get over it at the door.
Bottom line is, there are more Players in the competition than just the ones at the top.
This has nothing to do with anything. If those players match against higher strength players and get disappointed and quit, that is literally no different from saying they shouldn't ever face the strongest players and in the game and thus the game will prevent them from matching those players. Either way, they disappear from the competition.
Player density only matters if those players actually see each other. If they don't, it doesn't matter if they exist. As far as each other is concerned, they don't, because they never meet. They might as well be playing another game.
Full participation matters. Players willing to jump in and be exposed to the entire competition pool matter. People who just want their own little private party protected from the competition at large do not matter to the overall health of the game mode.
The reason why we have to keep saying this is a competition is because you seem to think that's just some label we put on the game mode, but it doesn't mean anything. But it means everything. We offer concessions to lower tier players - we completely protect them from having to face the rest of the competition all the way up to Platinum 2. But that is a concession because that runs entirely contrary to a competition. It unfairly punishes higher progress and stronger roster players. We accept this penalty as the price to allow lower tier players the ability to participate at some level in a competition where they would otherwise be mostly outmatched.
But again, these are concessions, because Battlegrounds is not PvE content. We are not trying to make everyone happy. We are not trying to ensure everyone can "complete" it like monthly EQ. It is there for players who *want* to compete, who *want* to win OR lose on their merits alone, and the expectations is Bronze, Silver, and Gold are the playgrounds for players to learn the ropes. Platinum 2 is where they are expected to graduate to being full competitors, with the mentality of full competitors, who believe that they should accept victory or defeat and put it solely upon themselves to improve their performance compared to the competition, who will be doing everything in their power to stop them.
If that's not you, if that's not the mindset the player has or even wants to have, then they need to take their Platinum 3 rewards and then find something else to do. Because they are of no help to the mode if they want to "participate" but don't actually want to engage with everyone else.
Participation only matters when it is with everyone else.
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree there. They do matter. The Players coming up now will be the competition tomorrow. Their long-term participation matters. If you're going to disregard them and their issues, I'd rather you just remove them from BGs completely because it's just plain wrong to act like their experience is trivial.
I like how people don't even read what I say and then make condemnations based on their own narratives. Honestly, it's useless even discussing it when that's all they hear.
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.
Their Rewards are not up for group concensus. They're up to Kabam, and that's why they're limited in the BG Store based on what is available to them. Also, we have UC and Cav Accounts with R3s and 7*s now, so that's really moot.
So the rewards are decided by Kabam, and as pointed out, virtually anyone can get about 25,000 tokens as they climb to their peak, so that's obviously what Kabam has decided is reasonable for those summoner.
To your comment regarding UC and Cavs having 6*R3 and 7*, I don't know what that has to do with anything. Just because they have them doesn't mean they've reached a point where they need them as r4 or r2.
But even still, they have the opportunity to save those tokens each season to buy t6b, t3a, and t6c when they have enough. No one is stopping them from doing that.
There's 16 year old kids with sports cars. That doesn't mean they should be racing in the Indy 500.
No one who is trying to progress is going to hold on to Tokens forever. For that matter, I can hold on to Glory for years, but I can only buy what's accessible to me, and at what cost, NOW. Not down the road. Also, that view sounds more self-serving than anything. Is the concern what is best for their Accounts, or trying to keep them from progressing when they come up? Sounds more to me like people want to keep others frozen where they're at. The game and what we deem appropriate for a UC or Cav Player, have changed now. That's my point in indicating they have 7*s and higher Champs. When you or I were at that level, things were different. It's past the point of trying to keep them from getting those Resources, and when they're available to them through the Store, evidently Kabam considers it acceptable. The majority of this argument is based on "what we feel they deserve", and it's not our call to make. It's not up to us, and it's not up to a Kangaroo Court to decide what lower Players get and what they don't get.
So now we've come full circle to the topic I've debated you on in the past.
Progression.
If someone's spending power is diminished in the BG store, that is ONLY that individuals fault. As you well know, story content is targeted for progression. It's why every progressive title has a tie to story content completion.
BGs is a competitive mode, against everyone who plays the game, meant to reward those (very nicely) who can climb the highest. Although you can choose to spend those rewarded tokens on items to rank up champs, it is not, and never has been, intended to be a path to progression where everyone gets 7*r2 champs from the rewards.
So here we are again, reiterating that BGs is for everyone, and everyone is given the opportunity to compete. If you hit a wall based on the strength of your account, you need to make a choice:
A) Be content with the wall you hit
Take advantage of the countless other game modes to advance your account while continuing to make a best effort in BGs.
Bottom line, everyone is afforded the same opportunities in this game. What you do with those opportunities is a matter of choice though, and not one that should be rewarded if you choose not to take advantage of the opportunities given.
This has nothing to do with what I said at all.
Your concern is UC,Cav,TB will quit the game mode because they can't succeed in a competition, what I am going to say might sound horrible; but do you think active Paragons who in a way set the pace of the game really care if UC and Cavs quit BGs? We never face them anyway.
I said they will stop caring about BGs. If you think the game mode doesn't depend on a range of Players for Matchmaking, you would be wrong.
I like how people don't even read what I say and then make condemnations based on their own narratives. Honestly, it's useless even discussing it when that's all they hear.
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.
Their Rewards are not up for group concensus. They're up to Kabam, and that's why they're limited in the BG Store based on what is available to them. Also, we have UC and Cav Accounts with R3s and 7*s now, so that's really moot.
So the rewards are decided by Kabam, and as pointed out, virtually anyone can get about 25,000 tokens as they climb to their peak, so that's obviously what Kabam has decided is reasonable for those summoner.
To your comment regarding UC and Cavs having 6*R3 and 7*, I don't know what that has to do with anything. Just because they have them doesn't mean they've reached a point where they need them as r4 or r2.
But even still, they have the opportunity to save those tokens each season to buy t6b, t3a, and t6c when they have enough. No one is stopping them from doing that.
There's 16 year old kids with sports cars. That doesn't mean they should be racing in the Indy 500.
No one who is trying to progress is going to hold on to Tokens forever. For that matter, I can hold on to Glory for years, but I can only buy what's accessible to me, and at what cost, NOW. Not down the road. Also, that view sounds more self-serving than anything. Is the concern what is best for their Accounts, or trying to keep them from progressing when they come up? Sounds more to me like people want to keep others frozen where they're at. The game and what we deem appropriate for a UC or Cav Player, have changed now. That's my point in indicating they have 7*s and higher Champs. When you or I were at that level, things were different. It's past the point of trying to keep them from getting those Resources, and when they're available to them through the Store, evidently Kabam considers it acceptable. The majority of this argument is based on "what we feel they deserve", and it's not our call to make. It's not up to us, and it's not up to a Kangaroo Court to decide what lower Players get and what they don't get.
So now we've come full circle to the topic I've debated you on in the past.
Progression.
If someone's spending power is diminished in the BG store, that is ONLY that individuals fault. As you well know, story content is targeted for progression. It's why every progressive title has a tie to story content completion.
BGs is a competitive mode, against everyone who plays the game, meant to reward those (very nicely) who can climb the highest. Although you can choose to spend those rewarded tokens on items to rank up champs, it is not, and never has been, intended to be a path to progression where everyone gets 7*r2 champs from the rewards.
So here we are again, reiterating that BGs is for everyone, and everyone is given the opportunity to compete. If you hit a wall based on the strength of your account, you need to make a choice:
A) Be content with the wall you hit
Take advantage of the countless other game modes to advance your account while continuing to make a best effort in BGs.
Bottom line, everyone is afforded the same opportunities in this game. What you do with those opportunities is a matter of choice though, and not one that should be rewarded if you choose not to take advantage of the opportunities given.
This has nothing to do with what I said at all.
Your very first sentence begs to differ.
"No one who is trying to progress is going to hold on to Tokens forever."
Yes, people who are trying to advance their Accounts are going to use them to hit Cav/Tb/Para. Not hoard them. That's logical.
And those "people" should explore story content rather than complain about hitting a wall in a competitive PvP mode.
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.
I find it quite generous of kabam to let everyone participate for awhile in the gamemode by having some sort of "fair" matchmaking. However, in a ladder, it shouldn't stay fair, eventually there has to be a point where you need to enhance your roster and skill to progress. I'm not being dismissive, I'm simply saying to do all the other things the game has to offer once you hit that wall.
You're politely telling people to go kick rocks when they have a valid reason to argue for their gaming experience as well. You can't open a game mode to such a range of Players and tell everyone who isn't the best of the best to suck it up.
What do you want kabam to do? Tell all players below 18k prestige that they can’t enter bgs because it won’t be fair for them? Even 18k prestige would be low considering your argument. Bgs are purely pvp. Kabam has let smaller rosters access it however they shouldn’t complain when they eventually reach the large accounts.
Everytime I see one of these posts I see an entitled player who wants to be on the level of people who have spent more time and presumably money in the game.
I'm not talking about myself. I've already outlined my issues with the current changes. My issue is that whenever someone posts the same issue, people jump on the Thread to silence them. Let them speak if they have an issue. Everyone else has had enough to say about it.
They air their grievances about the mode. We air our grievances about their grievances.
They made a post now we can react to it, that’s the point of the forums dude.
Comments
This would no longer be a competition in any normal sense, but it would be fair.
A PVP competition has a human factor, Player VS Player like you have said before has no fairness, and if anything the attempts to mak e it fair should be aimed up and not down. People should be rewarded for working hard on roster and content, not reward less experienced players out of pity.
Being lazy and not doing content should not be rewarded.
An no Paragon relies on r5s to win, and you probably shouldn't be talking about what Paragons do, when you are not one.
Fairness is ultimately a function of the rules. Every competitor of every competition is expected to do anything and everything within the rules to gain an advantage over their competition. Gaining advantages is what competition is all about. As Sun Tzu wrote, every battle is won before it is fought.
Fairness is an adjective. We don't want fair fights, we want a fair competition. Fair fights are fights where both sides have an equal chance of winning. Fair competitions are competitions in which competitors are judged on their competitive strength and performance and generate commensurate results.
In MCOC roster development is as much a part of the game as tappy tappy on the screen. Neutralizing that advantage in Battlegrounds is no different from making Paragon players play with one hand tied behind their backs to make things fairer for the players who haven't learned to parry yet.
Secondly, we're talking about a competition that measures performance within that competition. If you're talking about a true measure, then someone who outperforms someone else who relies on an overpowering Roster is more deserving in my opinion. What's lazy is resting on laurels.
Lazy is resting on laurels I agree.. like complaining about the competition changing because someone made it to GC on the 2 easiest seasons and now they can't. Lazy is being a 7-8 year player and becoming Paragon after 1.5 years of release..
Congratulations on being Paragon.
How, exactly, do you determine who 'outperforms' who in a competition if not who wins or who loses?
Player A works their ass off and comes up short because the Champs they're coming up against stop their skill from doing enough Damage within the 2 minutes.
Player B puts in minimal effort and relies on the overpowered strength of their Champs and wins.
Who has earned it more?
If it's a competition then player B earns the victory.
If it's a kindergarten then both players get a trophy and happy meal on the ride home.
By this definition, no Chess tournament is a competition. No organized sport I'm aware of is a competition. Formula 1 is not a competition. In every competition I'm aware of, competitors prepare before the actual competitive event to maximize their ability to win, and are rewarded for that preparation.
In MCOC, the player's roster is the tools of competition. They are the race vehicles in NASCAR, they are yachts in America's Cup racing, the shoes in Olympic track and field. In top level Chess, grandmasters now study with computers to develop and memorize opening strategy. They are essentially bringing supercomputer strategy cheaat sheets in their heads, and if their opponent is unable to outthink the computer or somehow escape that memorized gameplay, they just lose.
Preparation is everything in a competition. Preparing skills, preparing strategy, preparing tools and equipment. The Indy 500 is not a competition between drivers going vroom vroom for 500 laps. The Indy 500 is a competition between driving teams. The car is just as much a part of the team as the driver and the pit crew. A better car offers an advantage. A fair advantage, because the car is part of the actual competitor. A good roster is a good racecar.
In American football, teams play with coaches that bring weeks of preparation to the game. A really well designed play can win a game for a team. They didn't design that play in the dirt with sticks during the game. It might have been concocted, tested, and practiced weeks before the game, maybe months before the game. An NFL game is not simply improvised on the field while the clock is running. The competitors are not being judged strictly by what they do in that moment. They are allowed to bring substantial advantages built up over weeks and months, and its all fair because why wouldn't they? It wouldn't occur to anyone to not do that because it wouldn't be fair to their competitors.
You want the player who loses to get a participation trophy like they're in kindergarten.
Here's what you're scenario looks like to me.
Player A casually plays the game and never pushes content or saves units for offers. They just can't be bothered to 100% Act 8 or do Carina's. Because of this, their champs and skills are underdeveloped and despite how hard they play they lose.
Player B finished all content as soon as it was released and was strategic with their spending and ranking. They've put a lot of time into building the perfect deck for each meta and know how to fight all the newest defenders. They get matched up with a TB and win easily because of all of the time and effort they've put into the game.
Who do you think really earned that victory?
In essence, you're ignoring all the time Player B has already put into the game and just shining the light on the small amount of time player A has put in. Any new player must face increasingly tough fights to hone in their skills, you don't get better at the game by just facing RoL WS.
Newer players will always and should always be at a disadvantage in a PvP gamemode. The game rewards Skill, roster strength, and game knowledge. You shouldn't ignore any of those 3 in a competitive PvP gamemode.
Also story content has literally never been easier, so if players lack roster strength, then they should put resources in towards beating the grandmaster so they can explore acts 7 and 8.
We players can debate who deserves the win more. To a certain extent that sort of thing is fair game for speculative discussion. That sort of thing literally powers all of (American) college football. But the game itself awards wins if you win and losses if you lose, and how you did it doesn't matter, nor should it. The game should be an impartial arbiter of wins and losses, and shouldn't care by what legal path a player takes to get the win. The player should be free to take any legal path to victory, and the game should only enforce the limits necessary for fair play consistent with the game's values.
And MCOC values roster development.
One of the things I have had to do in my career is plan out complex operations during downtime. As someone who normally hates doing anything more than scribbling in a notebook, this is where I actually would script out everything down to every nut, bolt, wire, and bathroom break. I had plan A, plan B, and plan C all prepared. I could re-cable systems in the dark by feel using physical port charts. I had backups down and software prestaged from a week before. I used to do some pretty crazy prep back in the day.
Which made most of my downtime upgrades, migrations, and other work pretty boring and uneventful. This was problematic, because it never looked like I was working. It all looked too easy. To the point that some clients decided they didn't need me anymore and could do it all themselves. Which I was more than happy to let them try. Although I did always give them fair warning.
Those clients were doing what is being discussed here. Judging based on visible effort, not results. In the real world, this is very dangerous. And I know professionals who deliberately don't prepare as much as they should, because they *want* the actual job to look and execute longer and harder than it needs to be, in order to get the A for effort. And sometimes they set the client on fire, but amazingly the client often thanks them for being there to put out the fire.
I have a word to describe this part of my profession. But it is a word I am not allowed to use here.
Bottom line is, there are more Players in the competition than just the ones at the top. You can say it's a competition until the cows come home, but the more you marginalize their efforts and participation, the more you push them away from playing it at all. If you think that's inconsequential, then by all means. Keep pushing for BGs to be more and more exclusive. The reality is their progress matters to them just as much as your progress matters to you, and it's not enough for people to want to earn their own placement. They have to dictate what they think everyone else deserves as well. Which, among the most competitive minds, is nothing. That's useless when considering the overall balance.
It's a competition! It's a competition! Great. We've established that. Everyone playing it has established that. The fairness of it is in question, and you can use all or nothing statements and claims that I'm pushing for participation trophies and easy Rewards, and all that. That's not the case. We all know what a fair competition is. Throwing people among Matches that they can't get past at the start of the competition isn't it. That sink or swim mentality doesn't work in this context. They're not playing in the Arena against set limits they can work towards over time. They're playing in a competition that increases Season after Season. If you are operating under the idea that they'll just get better as they bash around Bronze and Silver, you're ignoring the other Players who will progress much faster.
I'm sorry that some people don't care if others fall out, but I do. I want people to be challenged enough to keep trying, not be told to get over it at the door.
Player density only matters if those players actually see each other. If they don't, it doesn't matter if they exist. As far as each other is concerned, they don't, because they never meet. They might as well be playing another game.
Full participation matters. Players willing to jump in and be exposed to the entire competition pool matter. People who just want their own little private party protected from the competition at large do not matter to the overall health of the game mode.
The reason why we have to keep saying this is a competition is because you seem to think that's just some label we put on the game mode, but it doesn't mean anything. But it means everything. We offer concessions to lower tier players - we completely protect them from having to face the rest of the competition all the way up to Platinum 2. But that is a concession because that runs entirely contrary to a competition. It unfairly punishes higher progress and stronger roster players. We accept this penalty as the price to allow lower tier players the ability to participate at some level in a competition where they would otherwise be mostly outmatched.
But again, these are concessions, because Battlegrounds is not PvE content. We are not trying to make everyone happy. We are not trying to ensure everyone can "complete" it like monthly EQ. It is there for players who *want* to compete, who *want* to win OR lose on their merits alone, and the expectations is Bronze, Silver, and Gold are the playgrounds for players to learn the ropes. Platinum 2 is where they are expected to graduate to being full competitors, with the mentality of full competitors, who believe that they should accept victory or defeat and put it solely upon themselves to improve their performance compared to the competition, who will be doing everything in their power to stop them.
If that's not you, if that's not the mindset the player has or even wants to have, then they need to take their Platinum 3 rewards and then find something else to do. Because they are of no help to the mode if they want to "participate" but don't actually want to engage with everyone else.
Participation only matters when it is with everyone else.
Everytime I see one of these posts I see an entitled player who wants to be on the level of people who have spent more time and presumably money in the game.
They made a post now we can react to it, that’s the point of the forums dude.