BGs is getting annoying, Kabam, you have to change something, idk what, but something.

JefechutaJefechuta Member Posts: 1,212 ★★★★
I think a lot of people gonna say the same, but if matchmaking is going to stay like this, Kabam must do something else to make climbing less boring/annoying/stressful.

In this case Im a paragon, but with 8 R4s, 5 7* for BGs, and the rest are R3s, playing vs people with full R4s or even half R5s, R4s and 7* R2s, Im fine with it, still being able to win, but I dont think that being able to do 50% wins and 50% loses vs people with much higher roster has the same value as doing it vs with similar/weaker rosters.

So something should be done, since its take more skills to win this matches, players should get 2 medals instead I think, or something like that, i dont know, but how can say that GC should have the best of the best, when players that are better than some whales that get to enter to GC, are stuck into Vibranium because it takes too much wins in a row with stronger rosters but still with worse skills/lesser knowledge about the matchups or the champions.

As I said, Im cool with playing vs big rosters since its everybody vs everybody, but if a fam that has all his 7* dupped already and at R2, still loses vs me, I should get more acknowledgment than he would get by beating the weak accounts.

Just saying, maybe Im wrong but if this medals are equal to the points you would earn in other games rank systems, in other games you would earn more points the stronger/bigger the opponent is compared to you.

«13456711

Comments

  • ahmynutsahmynuts Member Posts: 7,609 ★★★★★

    ahmynuts said:

    Absolutely loving that we have this now

    I would normally agree, but this post is very clearly trying to accept the way matchmaking is and ask for some way to make the grind a little less tedious. Providing the same copy and paste response for every thread that has the words "Battlegrounds" and "matchmaking" in it is, in the nicest way possible, NPC behavior.
    See my above reply
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,283 ★★★★★
    2-1 coin ratio would send people way too fast into GC, with seeding that would mean over 30k trophies a season for just a few matches.
  • WinterFieldsWinterFields Member Posts: 786 ★★★★
    I understand that it can feel tedious, but it's also an open competition mode. It's meant to be challenging to rise and it's satisfying when you make it far.

    If they lessen the difficulty, it takes away from the experience of a PvP mode. We, the players, really dictate how hard a PvP mode is and the bar is set high.

    Aside from top level AW/AQ, no other areas needs r4 and higher champs. While BG can be a grind, it also motivates me most to play and rank up champs.
  • KTPrimalKTPrimal Member Posts: 121
    I don't believe his point is about 2-1 coins or lessening difficulty. More like if you beat a higher ranked player, or bigger account(?), more rp should be rewarded instead of a flat amount. Same for losses.
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,283 ★★★★★
    KTPrimal said:

    I don't believe his point is about 2-1 coins or lessening difficulty. More like if you beat a higher ranked player, or bigger account(?), more rp should be rewarded instead of a flat amount. Same for losses.

    That would be exploitable.
  • KTPrimalKTPrimal Member Posts: 121

    KTPrimal said:

    I don't believe his point is about 2-1 coins or lessening difficulty. More like if you beat a higher ranked player, or bigger account(?), more rp should be rewarded instead of a flat amount. Same for losses.

    That would be exploitable.
    How? That's how ranked works. How you perform in a match, fight, game, depending on what you're playing, determines the rp you get. The higher your elo the less rp is rewarded. In mcoc you get the same for winning no matter who you face or defeat. You hardly lose anything for losing other than marks.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,693 Guardian
    KTPrimal said:

    ahmynuts said:



    Absolutely loving that we have this now

    In this case that's not OPs point honestly.
    It isn't, but it is ultimately a related point.

    We talk about the grind in BG as if progress was guaranteed. Everyone should be able to just keep going higher, provided they put in enough work. But in fact, BG is intended to be a competitive ladder. That means everyone should eventually end up roughly where their relative competitive strength lies. In other words, if you are in the top 20% of all BG players, you should end up somewhere around the top 20% percent bracket. Extra effort could causes you to go higher, less effort could see you fall lower, but there is some point somewhere along VT or GC where your "intrinsic" strength should be able to carry you. Anything past that point should be extremely difficult to get past, because otherwise BG is less about winning and more about grinding.

    And I will paraphrase an unnamed dev from the original BG closed beta, because I think this is not betraying any beta confidences: Battlegrounds is not intended to be another arena.

    You should win until you can't win, and then you should slow or stop going upward. In alliance war there are only twelve wars in a season, and there's no way to play more than the allotted wars, so there's no way for one alliance to "grind out" more wins. Alliances end up roughly in line with their overall competitive performance - how good they were. But in BG it is possible for a player to play an almost unlimited number of matches. There is some reward for playing more matches, but the devs did not want overall final rank to be highly dependent on it. So the reason why progress upward is "grindy" is because in fact this is deliberate. The devs want upward progress to be easy if you are winning easy, and they want it to be borderline impossible if you are winning and losing at 50% or less (winning and losing 50/50 implies you are just as strong as your surrounding competition, and thus shouldn't rank higher than any of them - you shouldn't go up much).

    The catch is the season reset. If we all stayed where we ended up and if it was possible to drop downward in VT, we'd just hover where we were forever. But we can't drop downward in a season and we do reset every season, which means that players aren't where their intrinsic strength would dictate at the start of the season. Instead everyone is mostly lower than that and moving upward. This means the strength of a VT tier changes over time, and whether a player can and should advance upward also changes over time.

    So while some of the grind is deliberate, one component of it is not. Impatience. Players attempting to get as far as they can as fast as they can run into escalating difficulty. They catch up with stronger and stronger players until they can get highly overmatched. Over time those stronger players will progress and that tier will get easier to win matches in and advance out of, but only if the player has the patience to wait for conditions to change. If they don't, then they can run into a temporary difficulty hurdle, and then the grind at that point can become excessively harsh.

    That's not directly intentional, but at the moment it is an unavoidable byproduct of how seasons are run in BG. I can't think of obvious changes that would eliminate that, without making it too easy to progress in general.
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,283 ★★★★★
    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    I don't believe his point is about 2-1 coins or lessening difficulty. More like if you beat a higher ranked player, or bigger account(?), more rp should be rewarded instead of a flat amount. Same for losses.

    That would be exploitable.
    How? That's how ranked works. How you perform in a match, fight, game, depending on what you're playing, determines the rp you get. The higher your elo the less rp is rewarded. In mcoc you get the same for winning no matter who you face or defeat. You hardly lose anything for losing other than marks.
    They would have to reveal the matchmaking system, make information about the threshold that involves giving 1 or 2 coins per win, what constitutes a stronger or weaker player...
    It would be a bit of a mess.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,693 Guardian
    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    I don't believe his point is about 2-1 coins or lessening difficulty. More like if you beat a higher ranked player, or bigger account(?), more rp should be rewarded instead of a flat amount. Same for losses.

    That would be exploitable.
    How? That's how ranked works. How you perform in a match, fight, game, depending on what you're playing, determines the rp you get. The higher your elo the less rp is rewarded. In mcoc you get the same for winning no matter who you face or defeat. You hardly lose anything for losing other than marks.
    in GC (and in most competitions driven by ELO and ELO derivatives) beating higher rated players earns more rating points. But there is a specific mathematical justification for that, which would take a while to explain. But doing so for stronger roster players would be problematic, because in effect this penalizes higher roster players. If they win against a lower roster player they would lose a lot more than normal but if they win they would gain less than normal, which is in effect a progress penalty on high roster players even if they win all the time.

    Since MCOC fundamentally supports itself by monetizing roster collection and upgrading it should not be penalizing roster expansion and upgrading, if it isn't trying to commit economic suicide.
  • KTPrimalKTPrimal Member Posts: 121
    DNA3000 said:

    KTPrimal said:

    ahmynuts said:



    Absolutely loving that we have this now

    In this case that's not OPs point honestly.
    It isn't, but it is ultimately a related point.

    We talk about the grind in BG as if progress was guaranteed. Everyone should be able to just keep going higher, provided they put in enough work. But in fact, BG is intended to be a competitive ladder. That means everyone should eventually end up roughly where their relative competitive strength lies. In other words, if you are in the top 20% of all BG players, you should end up somewhere around the top 20% percent bracket. Extra effort could causes you to go higher, less effort could see you fall lower, but there is some point somewhere along VT or GC where your "intrinsic" strength should be able to carry you. Anything past that point should be extremely difficult to get past, because otherwise BG is less about winning and more about grinding.

    And I will paraphrase an unnamed dev from the original BG closed beta, because I think this is not betraying any beta confidences: Battlegrounds is not intended to be another arena.

    You should win until you can't win, and then you should slow or stop going upward. In alliance war there are only twelve wars in a season, and there's no way to play more than the allotted wars, so there's no way for one alliance to "grind out" more wins. Alliances end up roughly in line with their overall competitive performance - how good they were. But in BG it is possible for a player to play an almost unlimited number of matches. There is some reward for playing more matches, but the devs did not want overall final rank to be highly dependent on it. So the reason why progress upward is "grindy" is because in fact this is deliberate. The devs want upward progress to be easy if you are winning easy, and they want it to be borderline impossible if you are winning and losing at 50% or less (winning and losing 50/50 implies you are just as strong as your surrounding competition, and thus shouldn't rank higher than any of them - you shouldn't go up much).

    The catch is the season reset. If we all stayed where we ended up and if it was possible to drop downward in VT, we'd just hover where we were forever. But we can't drop downward in a season and we do reset every season, which means that players aren't where their intrinsic strength would dictate at the start of the season. Instead everyone is mostly lower than that and moving upward. This means the strength of a VT tier changes over time, and whether a player can and should advance upward also changes over time.

    So while some of the grind is deliberate, one component of it is not. Impatience. Players attempting to get as far as they can as fast as they can run into escalating difficulty. They catch up with stronger and stronger players until they can get highly overmatched. Over time those stronger players will progress and that tier will get easier to win matches in and advance out of, but only if the player has the patience to wait for conditions to change. If they don't, then they can run into a temporary difficulty hurdle, and then the grind at that point can become excessively harsh.

    That's not directly intentional, but at the moment it is an unavoidable byproduct of how seasons are run in BG. I can't think of obvious changes that would eliminate that, without making it too easy to progress in general.
    Yes I know what a competitive ladder is. I'm not arguing to make BGs easier. My stance is to make BGs more competitive. Because at the moment BGs is just another arena but with much better rewards. The ranking system is not there yet to reflect a ranked mode. Rather predictable currently. There's hardly a gain from winning and a loss for losing. I also believe seeding is a step in the right direction. BGs doesn't officially start until you're in the circuit.
  • KTPrimalKTPrimal Member Posts: 121

    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    I don't believe his point is about 2-1 coins or lessening difficulty. More like if you beat a higher ranked player, or bigger account(?), more rp should be rewarded instead of a flat amount. Same for losses.

    That would be exploitable.
    How? That's how ranked works. How you perform in a match, fight, game, depending on what you're playing, determines the rp you get. The higher your elo the less rp is rewarded. In mcoc you get the same for winning no matter who you face or defeat. You hardly lose anything for losing other than marks.
    They would have to reveal the matchmaking system, make information about the threshold that involves giving 1 or 2 coins per win, what constitutes a stronger or weaker player...
    It would be a bit of a mess.
    So in other words, it's not a true ranked mode currently.
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,283 ★★★★★
    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    I don't believe his point is about 2-1 coins or lessening difficulty. More like if you beat a higher ranked player, or bigger account(?), more rp should be rewarded instead of a flat amount. Same for losses.

    That would be exploitable.
    How? That's how ranked works. How you perform in a match, fight, game, depending on what you're playing, determines the rp you get. The higher your elo the less rp is rewarded. In mcoc you get the same for winning no matter who you face or defeat. You hardly lose anything for losing other than marks.
    They would have to reveal the matchmaking system, make information about the threshold that involves giving 1 or 2 coins per win, what constitutes a stronger or weaker player...
    It would be a bit of a mess.
    So in other words, it's not a true ranked mode currently.
    Where? It can't really be true ranked mode from the get go, like DNA said, if it based purely on skill yeah. The moment you have a roster strength or variety variable it stops.
    The idea would be flawed too.. imagine telling the top guy hey you can only get 1 per win; but the guy below you will get 2 if he beats you.
  • KTPrimalKTPrimal Member Posts: 121

    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    I don't believe his point is about 2-1 coins or lessening difficulty. More like if you beat a higher ranked player, or bigger account(?), more rp should be rewarded instead of a flat amount. Same for losses.

    That would be exploitable.
    How? That's how ranked works. How you perform in a match, fight, game, depending on what you're playing, determines the rp you get. The higher your elo the less rp is rewarded. In mcoc you get the same for winning no matter who you face or defeat. You hardly lose anything for losing other than marks.
    They would have to reveal the matchmaking system, make information about the threshold that involves giving 1 or 2 coins per win, what constitutes a stronger or weaker player...
    It would be a bit of a mess.
    So in other words, it's not a true ranked mode currently.
    Where? It can't really be true ranked mode from the get go, like DNA said, if it based purely on skill yeah. The moment you have a roster strength or variety variable it stops.
    The idea would be flawed too.. imagine telling the top guy hey you can only get 1 per win; but the guy below you will get 2 if he beats you.
    Are you aware with how ranked modes work in competitive games? BGs gets called competitive and a competition so often to where it's reaching a point where it's beginning to seem like the community don't want BGs to be a competitive ranked mode.
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,283 ★★★★★
    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    KTPrimal said:

    I don't believe his point is about 2-1 coins or lessening difficulty. More like if you beat a higher ranked player, or bigger account(?), more rp should be rewarded instead of a flat amount. Same for losses.

    That would be exploitable.
    How? That's how ranked works. How you perform in a match, fight, game, depending on what you're playing, determines the rp you get. The higher your elo the less rp is rewarded. In mcoc you get the same for winning no matter who you face or defeat. You hardly lose anything for losing other than marks.
    They would have to reveal the matchmaking system, make information about the threshold that involves giving 1 or 2 coins per win, what constitutes a stronger or weaker player...
    It would be a bit of a mess.
    So in other words, it's not a true ranked mode currently.
    Where? It can't really be true ranked mode from the get go, like DNA said, if it based purely on skill yeah. The moment you have a roster strength or variety variable it stops.
    The idea would be flawed too.. imagine telling the top guy hey you can only get 1 per win; but the guy below you will get 2 if he beats you.
    Are you aware with how ranked modes work in competitive games? BGs gets called competitive and a competition so often to where it's reaching a point where it's beginning to seem like the community don't want BGs to be a competitive ranked mode.
    I call it competitive mode within MCoC not within the meaning of the word Competition.
  • GreekhitGreekhit Member Posts: 2,820 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    ahmynuts said:



    Absolutely loving that we have this now

    Screenshot that comment from Kabam Jax for when accounts under 750K are in GC so he can explain how they are truly *best-of-the-best* who have *beat the best.*

    Dr. Zola
    They are the best of the best since they have beaten the best of the best, out of their Prestige silo of course 😉
    Kabam destructive Prestige matchmaking guarantees the skewed results, as well as those tiny accounts making it to GC 😠
    What a mess of a mode 🤷
  • MidnightfoxMidnightfox Member Posts: 1,291 ★★★
    I think the point op was making is some things could be tweaked. Like going back to the +2 -1 from two seasons ago.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,581 ★★★★★

    I think the point op was making is some things could be tweaked. Like going back to the +2 -1 from two seasons ago.

    Oh, I'm definitely on board with that one. Even for those of us who aren't newer, it's a frustrating climb.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,581 ★★★★★
    I think if they had 5 Tokens required for D4 and up, and one Token per Win in all of Vibranium, that would be reasonable.
  • JollyHawkJollyHawk Member Posts: 611 ★★★
    DrZola said:

    ahmynuts said:



    Absolutely loving that we have this now

    Screenshot that comment from Kabam Jax for when accounts under 750K are in GC so he can explain how they are truly *best-of-the-best* who have *beat the best.*

    Dr. Zola
    This totally made the Karate Kid theme song stuck in my head.

    "The BEST......AROUND!!!"
  • MidnightfoxMidnightfox Member Posts: 1,291 ★★★
    Yeah. The 5 wins at diamond 1 and vibranium is a pain. The +2 -1 made it more bearable.
  • ItsClobberinTimeItsClobberinTime Member Posts: 5,444 ★★★★★
    Now this I can definitely agree with, I don't see them doing something like this cause it must be a lot of work but I'd be fine with something like this if they did add it. If a TB or a Cav beats me even with the huge roster disadvantage, I do think they should get more medals.
Sign In or Register to comment.