**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
You talked about big accounts tanking matches, there is an easy solution for that, punishing losses; but you wouldn't be happy if losing a match would drop you from Gold to Silver would you?
If you don't like BG and don't want to compete, don't play it. This is a perfectly valid statement when we're talking about a game mode explicitly designed to appeal to a specific kind of playstyle. Yes, we should try to minimize barriers to entry, and yes we should try to give players an opportunity to warm to it, but not at the expense of eliminating the only reason it exists in the first place: to give players who want that experience a place to get it.
Something for everyone, not everything for someone. If it is too much to ask to let the head to head competitive game mode keep its head to head competitive flavor because the players that don't want that must have everything be for them, then maybe we should start looking at the things those players like that we can find a majority of players to dislike, like challenge content, like arena, like AQ, like higher tier EQ, like repetitive side quests. Maybe we should just find the one guy that likes to do one duel a day and design the game around him.
That's hyperbole of course, because the devs wouldn't do that, because that would be dumb. Just as taking all the time and effort they put into making a head to head competitive mode and neutering the head to head competitive parts because it makes some players sad. I could have told them that would happen before they wasted all that time and money building the mode. It happens in every online game that retrofits PvP. There's a whole chapter in the handbook of game design with the Loki emote on the first page and a definition of teabagging quoted at the bottom.
If you can't handle making the players who dislike head to head competition sad, you have no business designing PvP game modes in online games. And I'm saying that on a forum where the people who designed it are likely going to read it, and have every opportunity to tell me directly that I'm full of it if they choose.
Paragons are not asking for the game to hand them easy matches to win. Paragons (some of them) are asking for everyone to have to face everyone else. Paragons do not expect to face UC after UC after UC. They expect to face everyone, UCs, Cavs, TBs, Paragons, and stronger Paragons. And they expect everyone else to expect the same.
I don't care if those UC players ever face me. I don't even care if they ever face other Paragons like me. But those UC players should face stronger UC players. They should face Cavs. They should face the strong Cavs. They should face the TBs. They should only face me if they face those others first. But they don't face any of us. Until they get to P2, then act surprised when they discover that players higher than UC actually exist.
There is no system that I feel is justified that involves higher Players taking advantage of lower Players by manipulating the system. None.
That's what we have everytime. People feel entitled to play the Tiers like a xylophone, and in War it became an ultimatum because certain Alliances were creating dummy Allies to take out lower Alliances just because they never came up against them. Now we have a system that starts Alliances in Tier 20, and can come up against any variation as long as the War Rating is similar.
I'm not staying quiet on this one. There has to be some way of making it a reasonable start for people. Call it what you want. I'm not in favor of allowing people to be bashed about Bronze over and over and told to suck it up.
Nobody is asking for a pass to bully people.
Such a funny guy you are, you accuse people of having intentions to take advantage of lower accounts; but I am patronizing you.
I think its pretty insulting to tell people that they want to take advantage of others. You should be more respectful and less ignorant.
Counterpoint two: a player starting today could easily surpass the strength of that account in just a few months.
Now see: that's ironic. It is not hard when you put enough effort into it.
2. You are creating a false equivalency which I have not argued for. Your example of global competitions would be valid if there were extreme restrictions on how the prize money could be spent. Such as if the winner of say, Wimbledon, was banned from ever buying tennis shoes or better racquets and was forced to play all subsequent tournaments in flip-flops. Minor differences in foreign exchange rates is not the reality of BG store, it explicitly forbids players of certain progression levels from accessing certain resources (which is common to all players) and then asks players to face up against other players who are given the same resources through the exact same game mode. It is not a competition when there are multiple classes of players being created, who are treated differentially under the rules of the competition.
3. Agree that a neutered competitive environment is not justified. But treating lower accounts as fodder for the strong ones is probably the quickest way to kill the game mode.
This is not true. Even in a completely random matchmaking set up, it is likely that some UC/Cav players will make it through to GC with some luck.
Further, once a player moves up a tier, they cannot move down. If infinite matches were to be played, each of the VT tiers would end up with only one player as all others will move up. The limit on the number of players in GC is more than the number of players in BG. Even if there is a practical limit on how many players get to GC, it is not the UC/Cavs who are blocking the progress of Paragons but the scoring system which is in place. Additional tiers and higher token requirement was introduced to limit GC access, not siloed matchmaking. It's just a false narrative that UC/Cavs are blocking progress of Paragons, at levels which are of any significance. Just like the 'same rewards' argument when the actual usable resources are only accessible in the store.
Yes, those Paragons would be able to move up faster if they faced the progressing UC/Cavs sooner. But they are also being rewarded at a higher rate for facing the more difficult competition (though not relatively). The absolute best players are anyway at the top.
That's ridiculous. In terms of explaining to players what's happening, that's completely missing the point. In terms of trying to advocate for some sort of change, that's completely nonsensical.
If players want to know why the match maker works the way it does, and why that's fair, that explanation is out there. The devs are not going to forget they made a competitive ladder game mode and stop balancing the number of people to reach GC. However, if players want to claim that isn't fair and try to convince someone to change it, they are going to have to do a whole lot better than that. And I don't think it makes a lot of sense for me to try to help them in that regard.
As to the rest of it, you can say that's not how things work, but I think anything more I would say about it would only be preaching to the choir. You don't present actual arguments beyond fiat statements. And while you can certainly try to reverse that assertion, again, I'm fine with letting people judge which is which at this point. I was simply stating, for the record, that your other statement about me ignoring these issues altogether is trivially provably false. There's very little about how Battlegrounds functions that I haven't addressed yet in at least some detail, nor any argument for radically altering it that I haven't given its due at least twice.
I will forfeit until I get 10 easy wins for the final milestone then bum around doing the regular objectives before a GC push in the final week.
The mode disincentivises faster pushes by anyone other than those who can climb GC and be successful in it by adding objectives that are easier to obtain by hanging around.
I'm starting to think that tying any objectives, regular and special, to qualifying in GC will be better long term than encouraging people like me to do the bare minimum.
You were the one who made the claim that every UC/Cav progressing in BG is taking a spot away from a Paragon. I was just pointing out that what was changed when more people got into GC was the scoring system and the changes in response has been more VT tiers and a harsher scoring system. You don't need to gaslight an entire section of the player base to deflect from that change.
For the record, I'm happy with the status quo in BG. It would be nice if people stopped tell others who play within the rules of the game that their progress is undeserved.
I doubt any but the most fervid competitors would spend as much time playing BGs if the store weren’t so generous. Most likely, it needed to be for the mode to launch successfully, but allowing everyone at every level to get everything wouldn’t do—so one assumes the team decided *tiering* the BG store was the best solution.
Matchmaking? Again, the mode needed to be something nearly everyone could play and *enjoy* at launch. Initially, it appeared the team thought the best solution for that was to have small face small and big face big—leading to some predictable distortions and expectations. Since Season 1, the team has been trying to find the right mix to make those distortions and expectations more acceptable.
This thread, like so many before it, demonstrates that “right mix” is elusive and may not be achievable at all. Eleven seasons in, the amount of expectations, envy, indignation and frustration from all sides makes it that much more difficult to achieve.
Dr. Zola