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.
So a Cav with multiple r3s who stayed as Cav, beating a brand new TB with 1 r3 would get more points or coins or whatever, see the problems that can occur?
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.
So a Cav with multiple r3s who stayed as Cav, beating a brand new TB with 1 r3 would get more points or coins or whatever, see the problems that can occur?
Oh there could definitely be issues with this, that's why I said IF they were to do this it'd be a lot of work because it ain't that simple, also I very clearly said "huge roster disadvantage" what you're describing is not a huge roster disadvantage. Do I think a Cav with 5* only who kicks my ass deserves an extra medal though? Sure, highly unlikely cause I still haven't lost to any this season lol but still.
I can understand OP's point... Make gladiator circuit as tough as you want, we don't care, but Victory track should be a little easy
the early part is.... also gotta remember. no matter what they do, people will not make it... every person that wins someone loses so there is always going to be someone left behind. if they do the sheltered pools all the way up you end up with the top portion of each progression level making it up there.
on what planet does a uc player with <500k roster deserve to get there whilst a paragon does not?
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.
Im mostly agree with this, but following what you said, If Im at 50% win/lose vs people with a roster twice as strong, am I really as strong as my surrionding competition or Im stronger? Because with an even roster, or not even but a little bit stronger one I would have won at least 75% instead of 50%, obviously I dont want it to be easier for me to win, but fair for me to win, the base point system with +1 medal win, -1 medal lose with the actual matchmaking should stay for the higher ranks of VT, but I think they should add something like "If your opponent has X+ prestige than you have (so people cannot take advantage of this purposely putting weak champs into their roster) you get an additional medal on win"
Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I think adding this into VT would make it more balanced.
OP, yes, roster is a limiter here along with skill. If you are able to match and hold your own vs rosters bigger than yours, the answer is simple. Improve your roster and you'll be able to progress easier.
Im mostly agree with this, but following what you said, If Im at 50% win/lose vs people with a roster twice as strong, am I really as strong as my surrionding competition or Im stronger?
It is not entirely about roster strength. I have faced opponents with roster's twice as strong as mine, and they don't draft or play as well as some opponents with roster's half as strong as mine. So a "50% win/loss vs people with a roster twice as strong" isn't all there is to it.
There are two different but related topics - progression (the macro level) and matchmaking (the micro level).
In terms of Progression, a 50% win/loss rate means you are generally where you should be since you are now considered Average in that tier. Players shouldn't really progress barring some good RNG where they are matched with several weaker rosters in a roll. Kabam's official statement here is that they don't want players to be able to grind their way to the top.
In terms of Matchmaking, a 50% win/loss rate can be either: (1) You get matched against an easy opponent one match, and get matched with an overwhelmingly difficult opponent in your next match. (2) You are getting matched with opponents who are +/- 5% of your "strength" and are, as expected, winning 50% of the time.
There are a lot of other interfering things going on - VT vs GC, medals one can earn per win, and whether matchmaking is limited or fully open in the lower or higher tiers.
Overall, I do agree with the feeling that BG is annoying, and isn't fun as a game mode anymore. But I disagree with it being due to 'unfair' matchups or not gaining enough tokens for progression. There is something else intrinsic in the way this game mode was designed that makes it annoying. It winds up feeling like we're the proletariat scrabbling over the same resources (wins).
OP, yes, roster is a limiter here along with skill. If you are able to match and hold your own vs rosters bigger than yours, the answer is simple. Improve your roster and you'll be able to progress easier.
Well thats the point, Im not a spender, not right now since I need to afford for a big payout I will have to do next year, and I dont want to spend on other "optional" things till Im done with that, so I will probably wont be able to scale the same way people will do on Black Friday, Spring, and July 4th sales, and I know that the spenders should have advantage since they pay, thats why its way easier for them to win, but since its way harder for other players due to this roster difference, if we outplay them because we play much better or we have more knowledge or we draft better due to that, we should also get acknowledged, since we are playing better than them
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.
Im mostly agree with this, but following what you said, If Im at 50% win/lose vs people with a roster twice as strong, am I really as strong as my surrionding competition or Im stronger? Because with an even roster, or not even but a little bit stronger one I would have won at least 75% instead of 50%, obviously I dont want it to be easier for me to win, but fair for me to win, the base point system with +1 medal win, -1 medal lose with the actual matchmaking should stay for the higher ranks of VT, but I think they should add something like "If your opponent has X+ prestige than you have (so people cannot take advantage of this purposely putting weak champs into their roster) you get an additional medal on win"
Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I think adding this into VT would make it more balanced.
"Against a roster twice as strong" really twice? What parameter are you using to measure twice? The only parameter that can go as far as twice after Plat2 is "Rating" and rating is the most irrelevant parameter.
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.
Im mostly agree with this, but following what you said, If Im at 50% win/lose vs people with a roster twice as strong, am I really as strong as my surrionding competition or Im stronger? Because with an even roster, or not even but a little bit stronger one I would have won at least 75% instead of 50%, obviously I dont want it to be easier for me to win, but fair for me to win, the base point system with +1 medal win, -1 medal lose with the actual matchmaking should stay for the higher ranks of VT, but I think they should add something like "If your opponent has X+ prestige than you have (so people cannot take advantage of this purposely putting weak champs into their roster) you get an additional medal on win"
Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I think adding this into VT would make it more balanced.
"Against a roster twice as strong" really twice? What parameter are you using to measure twice? The only parameter that can go as far as twice after Plat2 is "Rating" and rating is the most irrelevant parameter.
Ill play some BGs at night, Ill send some examples so you can see the difference, i dont have a problem at all with playing with big accounts, but at least we could get a medal and a half or something, idk, if those accounts are that much stronger than ours but we still win
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.
Im mostly agree with this, but following what you said, If Im at 50% win/lose vs people with a roster twice as strong, am I really as strong as my surrionding competition or Im stronger? Because with an even roster, or not even but a little bit stronger one I would have won at least 75% instead of 50%, obviously I dont want it to be easier for me to win, but fair for me to win, the base point system with +1 medal win, -1 medal lose with the actual matchmaking should stay for the higher ranks of VT, but I think they should add something like "If your opponent has X+ prestige than you have (so people cannot take advantage of this purposely putting weak champs into their roster) you get an additional medal on win"
Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I think adding this into VT would make it more balanced.
"Against a roster twice as strong" really twice? What parameter are you using to measure twice? The only parameter that can go as far as twice after Plat2 is "Rating" and rating is the most irrelevant parameter.
Ill play some BGs at night, Ill send some examples so you can see the difference, i dont have a problem at all with playing with big accounts, but at least we could get a medal and a half or something, idk, if those accounts are that much stronger than ours but we still win
Its really not answering my question, I never said you minded or not, I am just curious on the Parameter used to define the "twice as big account". Yeah i understand twice maybe used as an exageration, but a 14-15k prestige account vs 17-18k could look as a huge gap but might not be. PI? Is define by masteries. What I am trying to say is that Kabam doesnt reveal matchmaking parameters cause people would exploit it, what parameter is the player using to call it a "Huge account"
So if BGs is all about spending and roster size, how does Brian Grant always make ti to the GC with a sub 16k prestige and zero R5/R2s as a F2P?
Maybe it's not a spending/roster issue and more a skill issue.
That's a perfect example, and it doesn't only talk about skill but also resource management. I have seen the argument of "the opponent has 3 6r5s and I only have one!! How am i supposed to win" the you look at the roster in detail and notice they got r1s and r2s on their deck, just because they scrape every piece of resource to get the 1 r5. Roster development is not getting 1 top rank and neglecting the rest. Maybe the player would fair better if instead of 1 r5 they had 3 more r4s, and that's why doing all content is important, to beef up the deck.
You can't use BG as an example. He makes a job out of that. I mean, good on him. He's just not something Players can aspire to. That's half the reason people think there's actually a chance at keeping up with people who spend mass amounts of money.
You can't use BG as an example. He makes a job out of that. I mean, good on him. He's just not something Players can aspire to. That's half the reason people think there's actually a chance at keeping up with people who spend mass amounts of money.
Have you been keeping up with Brian lately? Sounds like you haven’t. Brian has said numerous times he will not play competitively again (AQ/AW) because he believes the higher you go in the MCOC chain, the more P2W it is.
You can't use BG as an example. He makes a job out of that. I mean, good on him. He's just not something Players can aspire to. That's half the reason people think there's actually a chance at keeping up with people who spend mass amounts of money.
Wrong.
He's been in retirement for like 2 years as well so he's missed out on a bunch of high level resources to build his roster that others could have easily gotten.
Just because others don't want to put in the time or effort that BG does doesn't mean it's impossible to reach his level.
You can't use BG as an example. He makes a job out of that. I mean, good on him. He's just not something Players can aspire to. That's half the reason people think there's actually a chance at keeping up with people who spend mass amounts of money.
They are looking for "the best of the best" and one of the best f2p if not the best one can't be used as an example, very interesting take.
OP, yes, roster is a limiter here along with skill. If you are able to match and hold your own vs rosters bigger than yours, the answer is simple. Improve your roster and you'll be able to progress easier.
Well thats the point, Im not a spender, not right now since I need to afford for a big payout I will have to do next year, and I dont want to spend on other "optional" things till Im done with that, so I will probably wont be able to scale the same way people will do on Black Friday, Spring, and July 4th sales, and I know that the spenders should have advantage since they pay, thats why its way easier for them to win, but since its way harder for other players due to this roster difference, if we outplay them because we play much better or we have more knowledge or we draft better due to that, we should also get acknowledged, since we are playing better than them
It is always going to be harder. But it is definitely about progression. I have an alt which is f2p, but fairly advanced in roster progression with 3 r5s. It is all about building your deck to a certain strat and executing it. Touch wood, so far, ive had no problems progressing. It does get harder, but that is unfortunately to be expected.
You can't use BG as an example. He makes a job out of that. I mean, good on him. He's just not something Players can aspire to. That's half the reason people think there's actually a chance at keeping up with people who spend mass amounts of money.
They are looking for "the best of the best" and one of the best f2p if not the best one can't be used as an example, very interesting take.
As an example of how spending doesn't matter? No. It's not an example that applies to everyone.
You can't use BG as an example. He makes a job out of that. I mean, good on him. He's just not something Players can aspire to. That's half the reason people think there's actually a chance at keeping up with people who spend mass amounts of money.
I can understand saying this for players like Slayer of Gods, MSD, Lagacy etc who are big spenders but why can't players aspire to be like BG? Put YouTube aside, what aspect of Brian Grants account and accomplishments in Battlegrounds can players never be able to reach?
He doesn't spend money so it's not like he's buying EMs to advance. He doesn't buy energy refills that I'm aware of. He doesn't buy crystals to get better champions. So what is out of reach for players?
You can't use BG as an example. He makes a job out of that. I mean, good on him. He's just not something Players can aspire to. That's half the reason people think there's actually a chance at keeping up with people who spend mass amounts of money.
They are looking for "the best of the best" and one of the best f2p if not the best one can't be used as an example, very interesting take.
As an example of how spending doesn't matter? No. It's not an example that applies to everyone.
Good old GW arguments, pick the parts that he can refute, what about the skill part? Are you saying that it doesn't apply to everyone cause they are not skillful? Yet they want rewards? Seems entitled to me 🤣
Comments
(But in reality it probably refers to a skilled player with a well-build roster)
i mean after all this game is primarily a champ collection game.
gotta catch em all, POKEMON....
i mean
gotta buy em all, Marvel COC
also gotta remember. no matter what they do, people will not make it...
every person that wins someone loses
so there is always going to be someone left behind.
if they do the sheltered pools all the way up you end up with the top portion of each progression level making it up there.
on what planet does a uc player with <500k roster deserve to get there whilst a paragon does not?
that is non sensical.
refer to kabam jax post.
IT IS A COMPETITION
Because with an even roster, or not even but a little bit stronger one I would have won at least 75% instead of 50%, obviously I dont want it to be easier for me to win, but fair for me to win, the base point system with +1 medal win, -1 medal lose with the actual matchmaking should stay for the higher ranks of VT, but I think they should add something like "If your opponent has X+ prestige than you have (so people cannot take advantage of this purposely putting weak champs into their roster) you get an additional medal on win"
Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I think adding this into VT would make it more balanced.
There are two different but related topics - progression (the macro level) and matchmaking (the micro level).
In terms of Progression, a 50% win/loss rate means you are generally where you should be since you are now considered Average in that tier. Players shouldn't really progress barring some good RNG where they are matched with several weaker rosters in a roll. Kabam's official statement here is that they don't want players to be able to grind their way to the top.
In terms of Matchmaking, a 50% win/loss rate can be either:
(1) You get matched against an easy opponent one match, and get matched with an overwhelmingly difficult opponent in your next match.
(2) You are getting matched with opponents who are +/- 5% of your "strength" and are, as expected, winning 50% of the time.
There are a lot of other interfering things going on - VT vs GC, medals one can earn per win, and whether matchmaking is limited or fully open in the lower or higher tiers.
Overall, I do agree with the feeling that BG is annoying, and isn't fun as a game mode anymore. But I disagree with it being due to 'unfair' matchups or not gaining enough tokens for progression. There is something else intrinsic in the way this game mode was designed that makes it annoying. It winds up feeling like we're the proletariat scrabbling over the same resources (wins).
What parameter are you using to measure twice? The only parameter that can go as far as twice after Plat2 is "Rating" and rating is the most irrelevant parameter.
What I am trying to say is that Kabam doesnt reveal matchmaking parameters cause people would exploit it, what parameter is the player using to call it a "Huge account"
Maybe it's not a spending/roster issue and more a skill issue.
I have seen the argument of "the opponent has 3 6r5s and I only have one!! How am i supposed to win" the you look at the roster in detail and notice they got r1s and r2s on their deck, just because they scrape every piece of resource to get the 1 r5.
Roster development is not getting 1 top rank and neglecting the rest. Maybe the player would fair better if instead of 1 r5 they had 3 more r4s, and that's why doing all content is important, to beef up the deck.
Do better
He's been in retirement for like 2 years as well so he's missed out on a bunch of high level resources to build his roster that others could have easily gotten.
Just because others don't want to put in the time or effort that BG does doesn't mean it's impossible to reach his level.
"Here's a F2P player who has lots of skill and he wins."
"You can't use him as an example!!!"
He doesn't spend money so it's not like he's buying EMs to advance. He doesn't buy energy refills that I'm aware of. He doesn't buy crystals to get better champions. So what is out of reach for players?
Are you saying that it doesn't apply to everyone cause they are not skillful? Yet they want rewards? Seems entitled to me 🤣