**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
**KNOWN BG ISSUE**
We are aware of an issue with the seeding for the beginning of the BG season.
We are adding rewards to higher progression brackets to offset the additional grind.
More information here.
We are aware of an issue with the seeding for the beginning of the BG season.
We are adding rewards to higher progression brackets to offset the additional grind.
More information here.
**Arcade is being extra tricky with his Murder Box...**
It appears Arcade has been non-cooperative in his approach to this month's side quest and presented his clues in a nonsensical order. Lucky you, Summoners, we have our best and brightest on the case and those clues should now be a lot more straightforward. While messing around in Arcade's files we came across a phrase, highlighted and bolded, with sparkles and pointy arrows: "the abode for the dead" ... Maybe that will help you along the way!
It appears Arcade has been non-cooperative in his approach to this month's side quest and presented his clues in a nonsensical order. Lucky you, Summoners, we have our best and brightest on the case and those clues should now be a lot more straightforward. While messing around in Arcade's files we came across a phrase, highlighted and bolded, with sparkles and pointy arrows: "the abode for the dead" ... Maybe that will help you along the way!
Options
Comments
If you disagree prove me wrong and tell me how you get all those r5 6* playing the game 😂
You grow your account to have benefits.
So basically all game modes where we face each other will always be dominated by how much you spend. Kinda crappy if you ask me.
I spend my self and not saying anything is wrong with that but the mode needs some balance so skill has more of a fighting chance with the spenders.
2. Kabam doesn't want equal playing field above Plat, you didn't read the post made by Kabam Jax? Keep crying all you want buddy, they're not gonna change matchmaking to cater to the noobs lol.
Specifically: (emphasis mine)
I should also point out that Kabam specifically referenced my own post describing the same issues they asserted were the focus of their BG changes moving forward, and while they didn't (at the time) fully agree with my proposed solutions, they did endorse my own view of the problems. So I feel it is fair to reference my own post on the same subject here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/328868/fix-battlegrounds-in-three-easy-steps-that-we-can-argue-about-until-the-end-of-time/p1 and specifically the section on "Fairness":
Roster matching is intended to be a balance between the competitive requirements of the mode and the participatory requirements of the mode, and rather than use a phase-in scheme like I proposed, they used a sharper cutoff between them. They can't just arbitrarily change that to make it harder for lower progress players to advance, because it is there in the first place to encourage participation. You say if the devs wanted to change the relative difficulty of progression in VT between different progression tier players they could have just changed where the roster match phases out, but there's the equally workable alternative to increase the runway past the cutoff, which is what they did instead. Doing so keeps the period when low progression players are incentivized to participate reasonably long, while having enough VT tracks post-cut off to differentiate players of different competitive strength before reaching GC. This is the far more logical option to take when you've already made a compromise decision on where to phase out roster matching.
Moreover, the devs do not have some sort of quota on how many players of each individual progression tier make it to GC. They don't directly care how many UCs or Cavs make it to GC. Rather, they care *how* they get there. If they get there because they fought through the same competitive pool as everyone else, they deserve to be there. But the devs know they are putting their thumbs on the scale with roster matching, and what they don't know with certainty is how much impact this is having as BG seasons progress. That's why they are still tweaking things now. They don't care if those players are UC or Cav or Paragon in broad terms, they care what percentage of the top players are making it to GC in general. Assuming they are in fact the top players of BG. When they see a ton of UCs in there, they aren't directly concerned that too many UCs are getting in, they are rather concerned that a large number of them suggests roster matching is continuing to have too much of an impact on how easy it is to get to GC. That provides feedback to their judgment on how hard to make VT overall. But because outside of early tier roster matching all match ups are random, any change they make to VT's overall difficulty is going to affect all VT players regardless of progression tier. VT structural changes are blind to progression, so by definition every low progress player that overcomes those difficulty hurdles to get into GC will displace a high progression player, because that part of VT doesn't distinguish between them, and neither do structural balance changes in that part of the VT.
- VT tracks were extended to limit the number of players getting into GC.
- The extension of VT tracks increase the competitive element of BGs over participatory elements. This by nature favors larger accounts over smaller one.
- If UC/Cav player fight through this competitive pool and get to GC, they deserve to be there.
How do you go from this to suggesting that every UC/Cav getting into GC is taking a spot away from a Paragon? That's a trivially true statement in terms that anyone who gets to GC is taking a spot away from anyone who isn't in GC. But the way you phrased it earlier made it seem the system was favoring lower accounts over larger ones. Maybe you believe that or maybe not. Anyway, this is much clearer. Thanks!
Like it or not it just is.
How much someone spends is only part of the equation.
But yeah, no matter how you do it, the biggest part of this game is building your roster. Infact that is exactly what it is all about.
It is pokemon in disguise.
You said video games, so here let’s talk about other games like COD or Apex that have a huge ranked system and yes in those games you have a p2w aspect in the game at times only if a paid gun has a better iron sight than the base but it’s 90% skill based and 10% p2w and they make plenty of money. Someone who doesn’t spend a dollar and grinds can compete at the same lvl as the biggest spenders.