Congrats to everyone who derailed the thread and somehow made it about matchmaking when that's not what the post was about at all. This was about rewarding weaker accounts when they do beat a player ten times stronger than them.
Why on earth should that even be a thing? What if the "stronger? account has connection issues? What if their game crashes?
Where does beating a "Stronger" account ever equal to gaining more than beating an "equal" account? What game out there has this mechanic?
If the game crashes so much that's is actually an issue then 1. Kabam needs to fix their game or 2. You need to buy a new phone.
I haven't played any games that have the exact same mechanics like the one OP is asking for but games like Dead by Daylight do have very similar ones with MMR. You win against someone with less MMR than you, you get the same amount of points or sometimes less if your MMR is way above theirs. When you beat someone with a higher MMR than yours, you get more points than you normally would by beating someone with same or lower MMR than you.
You're deflecting the point. Why should a lower account get extra medals for winning in those cases I just listed. Did they actually win?
Giving extra for beating a "stronger" team doesn't exist really anywhere. Can you imagine that a 5 and 9 football team gets an extra win for beating a 9 and 5 team?
If it's a disconnection issue sure, it doesn't count. If it's a forfeit though, it absolutely should, tanking is scummy.
It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
How are either of those games comparable to BGs in MCOC?
Congrats to everyone who derailed the thread and somehow made it about matchmaking when that's not what the post was about at all. This was about rewarding weaker accounts when they do beat a player ten times stronger than them.
Why on earth should that even be a thing? What if the "stronger? account has connection issues? What if their game crashes?
Where does beating a "Stronger" account ever equal to gaining more than beating an "equal" account? What game out there has this mechanic?
If the game crashes so much that's is actually an issue then 1. Kabam needs to fix their game or 2. You need to buy a new phone.
I haven't played any games that have the exact same mechanics like the one OP is asking for but games like Dead by Daylight do have very similar ones with MMR. You win against someone with less MMR than you, you get the same amount of points or sometimes less if your MMR is way above theirs. When you beat someone with a higher MMR than yours, you get more points than you normally would by beating someone with same or lower MMR than you.
You're deflecting the point. Why should a lower account get extra medals for winning in those cases I just listed. Did they actually win?
Giving extra for beating a "stronger" team doesn't exist really anywhere. Can you imagine that a 5 and 9 football team gets an extra win for beating a 9 and 5 team?
If it's a disconnection issue sure, it doesn't count. If it's a forfeit though, it absolutely should, tanking is scummy.
It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
How are either of those games comparable to BGs in MCOC?
What do you mean how? They're both pvp competitive and ranked just like BGs. If what you're asking is if they are arcade style fighting mobile games like mcoc no they're not, that still doesn't change the fact that they have pvp competitive ranked modes just like BGs and they have a system similar to the one OP suggested though, it's possible for something like this to work. Listen, if you're against the idea just say so lol
Congrats to everyone who derailed the thread and somehow made it about matchmaking when that's not what the post was about at all. This was about rewarding weaker accounts when they do beat a player ten times stronger than them.
Dude 10 times higher? Really? That's either a disconnect or tanking lol
That's the only way I'd see anything like this working, the difference in roster size would have to be big, and if this discourages people from tanking then they can kill two birds with one stone.
So basically you are asking for a 1 in a million shot. A 1.5k prestiege account beating a 15k account for example lol I would be fine with that lol Give them 20 coins and an instant pass to Plat2 if that ever happens 🤣
That's too big of a difference lol when I said ten times it wasn't accurate, that comment was about how you and other people derailed the thread for no reason, not the whole medal thing OP suggested. If you want to talk about how big the difference in prestige should actually be in my opinion, then I think 6k would be reasonable. Still highly unlikely they'll win and they'll probably lose 9 times out of 10 but I don't think it would hurt any specific players except the ones that tank so why not.
If its 5k or 6k dif in prestiege and it beats me legit, no disconnection or anything.. yeah give him the 2x points, hell give him 5x and force me to do a Post of shame in the forums so everyone can laugh and point at me 🤣
Yeah, sounds ridiculous but there are a lot of ptw whales who have unitmanned all content in game and sometimes do lose lol you can laugh, I do too but it happens.
You know what, if that happens let it be and reward them extra lol, I mean who am I to judge dreams when I buy a powerball ticket once in a while 🤣
Lol yes it will be a rare occurrence but that's the only way I see something like this working, you'd be surprised how many ptw whales will die to a 5* sig 100 Korg with an r4 Kitty though.
That's just 1 round out of 3 though, continuing my powerball ticket reference i hit 1 number out of 6 before, didn't win anything but i did get 1 number right 🤣
Korg's not the only defender they struggle against there are plenty lol that was just one example.
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 🤣
I never said he wasn't skilled. Sounds like you're picking the argument yourself.
The best F2P player shows for years how he can be succesful as a F2P player and until recent shows how he is able to hang in a top alliance, also decides to quit because he feels like he is holding back one of the best alliances; but that's not an example that applies to everyone. Skill overcoming spending up to a point is not something that applies to EVERY player. Why are you even playing then?
I said one exceptional example who dedicated the majority of his time to proving you can hang without spending isn't an example that can apply to showing all Players that spending doesn't mean you can't compete at the Top Tier. Context. It matters.
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 🤣
I never said he wasn't skilled. Sounds like you're picking the argument yourself.
The best F2P player shows for years how he can be succesful as a F2P player and until recent shows how he is able to hang in a top alliance, also decides to quit because he feels like he is holding back one of the best alliances; but that's not an example that applies to everyone. Skill overcoming spending up to a point is not something that applies to EVERY player. Why are you even playing then?
I said one exceptional example who dedicated the majority of his time to proving you can hang without spending isn't an example that can apply to showing all Players that spending doesn't mean you can't compete at the Top Tier. Context. It matters.
No, you just don't like that there's proof that BGs aren't all about spending and account size. You don't want to admit that skill and smart decisions are a huge part of the game.
No you just added the exceptional part, you said he was good cause that was his job Of course it doesnt apply to all players, not all players are skilled.
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 🤣
I never said he wasn't skilled. Sounds like you're picking the argument yourself.
The best F2P player shows for years how he can be succesful as a F2P player and until recent shows how he is able to hang in a top alliance, also decides to quit because he feels like he is holding back one of the best alliances; but that's not an example that applies to everyone. Skill overcoming spending up to a point is not something that applies to EVERY player. Why are you even playing then?
I said one exceptional example who dedicated the majority of his time to proving you can hang without spending isn't an example that can apply to showing all Players that spending doesn't mean you can't compete at the Top Tier. Context. It matters.
No, you just don't like that there's proof that BGs aren't all about spending and account size. You don't want to admit that skill and smart decisions are a huge part of the game.
That doesn't hurt my feelings at all. I'm making the point that people cannot go head-to-head with people who spend large amounts of money, nor should they. That's the whole idea that fuels this "F2P vs. P2P" narrative.
I'm not sure why your feelings matter on this, we are presenting arguments to discredit the idea that people who spend win because they spend, not your feelings.
Congrats to everyone who derailed the thread and somehow made it about matchmaking when that's not what the post was about at all. This was about rewarding weaker accounts when they do beat a player ten times stronger than them.
Why on earth should that even be a thing? What if the "stronger? account has connection issues? What if their game crashes?
Where does beating a "Stronger" account ever equal to gaining more than beating an "equal" account? What game out there has this mechanic?
If the game crashes so much that's is actually an issue then 1. Kabam needs to fix their game or 2. You need to buy a new phone.
I haven't played any games that have the exact same mechanics like the one OP is asking for but games like Dead by Daylight do have very similar ones with MMR. You win against someone with less MMR than you, you get the same amount of points or sometimes less if your MMR is way above theirs. When you beat someone with a higher MMR than yours, you get more points than you normally would by beating someone with same or lower MMR than you.
You're deflecting the point. Why should a lower account get extra medals for winning in those cases I just listed. Did they actually win?
Giving extra for beating a "stronger" team doesn't exist really anywhere. Can you imagine that a 5 and 9 football team gets an extra win for beating a 9 and 5 team?
If it's a disconnection issue sure, it doesn't count. If it's a forfeit though, it absolutely should, tanking is scummy.
It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
How are either of those games comparable to BGs in MCOC?
What do you mean how? They're both pvp competitive and ranked just like BGs. If what you're asking is if they are arcade style fighting mobile games like mcoc no they're not, that still doesn't change the fact that they have pvp competitive ranked modes just like BGs and they have a system similar to the one OP suggested though, it's possible for something like this to work. Listen, if you're against the idea just say so lol
The community doesn't really want BGs to be a competitive ranked pvp mode. No matter how often they call it a competition.
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?
You're just as strong.
We judge competitor performance, period. If I'm a NASCAR driver and I am just as fast around the track as another driver, but his car is better, does that mean I'm actually a better driver? Well, technically yes. But we don't award wins in NASCAR for the best driver. We award wins in NASCAR to the team that goes around the track over and over the fastest.
Your roster is your equipment. Its your race car, its your running shoes it is part and parcel of your strength as a competitor. MCOC is a game that is built on roster progress. Every single game mode is a place to show off the strength of that roster progress and benefit from it. Battlegrounds is another such mode.
If the intent was the find the best driver and not the best overall competitive performance, they would just give us all the same roster. Competitions sometimes do that: the old iROC races for example. But Battlegrounds is a game mode in service of a game built to encourage people to build roster. In fact, the devs removed deck matching from BG for the very specific reason that it discouraged players from building roster.
It is important to remember that competitions are never about fairness, in the sense of giving everyone an equal chance of winning. That's a lottery. Competitions are about fairness in the sense of everyone obeying a certain set of rules designed to structure the competition, but within those rules everyone is assumed to try to do anything possible to gain an advantage over the competition. Competition is literally about competitors trying to get advantages over each other and give themselves the best chance of winning. Building roster is part of what's allowed in BG because BG exists in a game that is built on encouraging players to build roster, and so players gaining advantages over other players by bringing a stronger roster is just as much "fair" as one NASCAR team bringing a faster car to the race. So long as they play within the rules, bringing a faster car is not fair in the sense that it gives that driver a higher chance of winning, but that's the point.
We are not looking for the best performer. We are looking for the best performance. In BG, as in every competitive activity.
Then how do you consider it a measure of performance if one of those Rosters ensures a Loss no matter how the other Player performs? That really removes the performance from the equation from my perspective.
Clearly after reading the comments you guys are thinking about other things that Im not even mentioning, so Ill make it quick, fast and easy:
If you win vs a much bigger account, you should get more than 1 medal, maybe 1 and a half or 2, since its harder for you to win, so it means that you are way better than the player you are matching.
Nobody cares about matchmaking, Im okay with fighting BeroMan or Lagacy, the point is that right now, roster makes more difference than skill, at least at Diamond/Vibranium.
I'm still waiting on the answer of defining the bigger account. What makes the other account much bigger, "twice as much" as you have said.
Ill showcase my own, I have 9 R4s, 6 7*R1s, and the rest are R3s, 3 of the 6* and all the 7* being undupped, I usually play vs at least 4 to 6 R5s, a couple 7 R2s, 3 or 4 7*R1s and the rest R4 6*, this being the average ones Im getting match with at least the last 2 days on D1, those ARE NOT the ones im talking about, since vs this guys im still able to win maybe 60% of times, BUT, at least yesterday, which is why I posted this, I got vs some titans in a row, people with half R5s, only R2 7*, all dupped, even some from Titan Crystals, and obviously, R3 to R4 in most cases is already enough difference to make you lose with similar skills and in some cases maybe even being better depending on the champs, but R5s and R2s vs my roster is already a decent difference, maybe Im exagerating and that due to having to play vs 4 of those in a row, but I dont think a win vs this accounts with mine, has the same value as winning a similar one.
If you want a simple answer, the reason this won't happen is it will discourage people from ranking up champs. Better players will refrain from ranking champs knowing they can beat lesser skilled players with larger rosters and progress faster. That is a direct monetary loss of the game.
Even if there were no monetary conditions, it goes against the fundamentals of the game. If you can't beat content, you do easier content to gather resources and strengthen your roster. Then you tackle the harder content. In this setting you cannot have a game mode which actively discourages stronger rosters.
That doesn't hurt my feelings at all. I'm making the point that people cannot go head-to-head with people who spend large amounts of money, nor should they.
This is a highly anticompetitive argument. Here's the competitive argument.
You can't put F2P players into a separate division and isolate them from the whales, because that means they never get a chance to compete against them. You've basically created a paywall that F2P players will never be able to breach. F2P players deserve to compete against everyone.
The reason why we just have one big competitive pool is because for competitive players (and BG is a competition, and should lean towards their needs) one big competitive pool means everyone has an opportunity to get as high as their performance can take them.
If there was a UC division and a Cav division and a TB division and a Paragon division, that doesn't just protect the UCs from the big bad Paragons. It means no UC gets to compete against the Cavs. Even if you are the best UC and could easily beat half the Cavs in the Cav division, too bad. You are sentenced to play in the UC division until you level up and become Cav.
The best UCs should be able to rise above the worst Cavs. The best UC can probably beat the worst TBs. We don't actually know if the best Cav out there could beat most of the Paragons, but it is possible. In a competition, where we are prioritizing competitive spirit, we should give them a chance to try. And if that means the worst UCs get pummelled while we are giving the best UCs that chance, that's life. We're handing them three complete tiers of BG rewards (Bronze, Silver, Gold) to fight over without ever seeing many if any stronger players at all. If that's not enough for them, then they can go grind arena. Losing players who do not want to ever see anyone else except each other doesn't hurt the game mode at all, because they are invisible either way.
We want to encourage players to participate in BG, but we want to do that by encouraging them to *become* competitors themselves. If they genuinely do not want to become competitors, that's fine. Collect Gold rewards and then go do something else. No harm no foul. But non-competitive players do not dictate to the competitive players the terms for participation in a competitive game mode by design. That's selfish. If you don't like grinding arena, don't do it. If you don't like incursions, don't do it. If you don't like competition, don't try to eliminate competition from the only head to head competitive game mode, and don't try to redefine what competition is to suit.
Clearly after reading the comments you guys are thinking about other things that Im not even mentioning, so Ill make it quick, fast and easy:
If you win vs a much bigger account, you should get more than 1 medal, maybe 1 and a half or 2, since its harder for you to win, so it means that you are way better than the player you are matching.
Nobody cares about matchmaking, Im okay with fighting BeroMan or Lagacy, the point is that right now, roster makes more difference than skill, at least at Diamond/Vibranium.
I'm still waiting on the answer of defining the bigger account. What makes the other account much bigger, "twice as much" as you have said.
Ill showcase my own, I have 9 R4s, 6 7*R1s, and the rest are R3s, 3 of the 6* and all the 7* being undupped, I usually play vs at least 4 to 6 R5s, a couple 7 R2s, 3 or 4 7*R1s and the rest R4 6*, this being the average ones Im getting match with at least the last 2 days on D1, those ARE NOT the ones im talking about, since vs this guys im still able to win maybe 60% of times, BUT, at least yesterday, which is why I posted this, I got vs some titans in a row, people with half R5s, only R2 7*, all dupped, even some from Titan Crystals, and obviously, R3 to R4 in most cases is already enough difference to make you lose with similar skills and in some cases maybe even being better depending on the champs, but R5s and R2s vs my roster is already a decent difference, maybe Im exagerating and that due to having to play vs 4 of those in a row, but I dont think a win vs this accounts with mine, has the same value as winning a similar one.
If you want a simple answer, the reason this won't happen is it will discourage people from ranking up champs. Better players will refrain from ranking champs knowing they can beat lesser skilled players with larger rosters and progress faster. That is a direct monetary loss of the game.
Even if there were no monetary conditions, it goes against the fundamentals of the game. If you can't beat content, you do easier content to gather resources and strengthen your roster. Then you tackle the harder content. In this setting you cannot have a game mode which actively discourages stronger rosters.
Not quite, if something like this were to be a thing in mcoc we wouldn't be talking about "oh this person has five r5s and this one has ten, the person with five won't r5 more champs so they can beat the one with ten who sucks and get two medals". The difference in prestige would have to be at the very least 5k, no person would stop ranking up champs completely just so they can try to beat someone with a huge roster advantage and get two medals cause 9 times out of 10 they won't be able to beat them.
I'm not disputing that it's a competition. In fact, I've grown to hate the word because of the amount of times it's been used in these discussions. In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
That doesn't hurt my feelings at all. I'm making the point that people cannot go head-to-head with people who spend large amounts of money, nor should they.
This is a highly anticompetitive argument. Here's the competitive argument.
You can't put F2P players into a separate division and isolate them from the whales, because that means they never get a chance to compete against them. You've basically created a paywall that F2P players will never be able to breach. F2P players deserve to compete against everyone.
The reason why we just have one big competitive pool is because for competitive players (and BG is a competition, and should lean towards their needs) one big competitive pool means everyone has an opportunity to get as high as their performance can take them.
If there was a UC division and a Cav division and a TB division and a Paragon division, that doesn't just protect the UCs from the big bad Paragons. It means no UC gets to compete against the Cavs. Even if you are the best UC and could easily beat half the Cavs in the Cav division, too bad. You are sentenced to play in the UC division until you level up and become Cav.
The best UCs should be able to rise above the worst Cavs. The best UC can probably beat the worst TBs. We don't actually know if the best Cav out there could beat most of the Paragons, but it is possible. In a competition, where we are prioritizing competitive spirit, we should give them a chance to try. And if that means the worst UCs get pummelled while we are giving the best UCs that chance, that's life. We're handing them three complete tiers of BG rewards (Bronze, Silver, Gold) to fight over without ever seeing many if any stronger players at all. If that's not enough for them, then they can go grind arena. Losing players who do not want to ever see anyone else except each other doesn't hurt the game mode at all, because they are invisible either way.
We want to encourage players to participate in BG, but we want to do that by encouraging them to *become* competitors themselves. If they genuinely do not want to become competitors, that's fine. Collect Gold rewards and then go do something else. No harm no foul. But non-competitive players do not dictate to the competitive players the terms for participation in a competitive game mode by design. That's selfish. If you don't like grinding arena, don't do it. If you don't like incursions, don't do it. If you don't like competition, don't try to eliminate competition from the only head to head competitive game mode, and don't try to redefine what competition is to suit.
Yeah I like you cause you are able to say a few things without being insulting or hurtful. Finally someone saying it in a detailed manner. People who just want rewards and not care about competing should not dictate how the competition is managed, structured or set.
I'm not disputing that it's a competition. In fact, I've grown to hate the word because of the amount of times it's been used in these discussions. In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
*Which has always been my main point. I've never been in favor of a static system with completely even Matches. What I've been a proponent of is some kind of limit in variations. However wide that needs to be in order to constitute a competition but not set one side up for a guaranteed Loss.
If nascar and professional sports teams allowed anybody to race or play those analogies would be accurate. They don't. Cars are regulated and have to be approved. You also have to have a license to be a nascar driver. Sports teams have criterias and separate divisions/leagues to bring integrity to their competition. And even within the same league, association, etc., those teams have guidelines that must be met.
It does, that's exactly how MMR works. Both Dead by Daylight and Overwatch have MMR and that's how it works, go look it up instead of replying with "it's not true because I said so".
If I understand it correctly, Death by Daylight's SMMR functions more like simplified hidden ELO than roster strength scoring. This isn't just a quibble of detail, because SMMR and ELO are both affected by actual competitive performance, while roster strength is not. To put it another way, someone with a strong roster who loses a lot, which implies that their overall competitive strength is low compared to peers, would retain the same roster strength score and continue to be matched against stronger players, while an MCOC player under ELO matching or a Dead by Daylight player matching with SMMR that kept losing would lose rating and thus lower their matched opponents.
To put it another way, the difference is feedback. Both SMMR and ELO attempt, in different ways, to determine the "true" performance of the player by measuring their wins and losses. Roster matching does not. And so in game theory terms, ELO is self-correcting, SMMR is a correction factor, and roster matching is putting your thumbs on the scales permanently.
The only way BGs can be 100% fair in all aspects is giving the same defaulted deck to everybody with the same set of masteries and making everyone face each other in a league structure. Now try selling that proposal to a gacha gaming company.
If nascar and professional sports teams allowed anybody to race or play those analogies would be accurate. They don't. Cars are regulated and have to be approved. You also have to have a license to be a nascar driver. Sports teams have criterias and separate divisions/leagues to bring integrity to their competition. And even within the same league, association, etc., those teams have guidelines that must be met.
I don't think you understand what analogies even are. When someone says X is like Y, in that these properties of X are similar to those properties of Y, and thus function similarly, that's how humans attempt to explain a position. This is not a mathematical proof that Y must function like X, such that any difference between X and Y invalidates the analogy.
I think most people reading my post understood the analogy, which is the purpose of the analogy. They might not agree with the position, but the analogy is only there to describe the position, not to prove the position is correct. So in what way does licensing NASCAR drivers invalidate my analogy? In what way does it confuses or otherwise mislead people reading the post and trying to understand what I am trying to express, at least for those making an honest attempt to do so?
The only way BGs can be 100% fair in all aspects is giving the same defaulted deck to everybody with the same set of masteries and making everyone face each other in a league structure.
That's not fair, because players with more knowledge and experience still have an advantage. The only way to make it 100% fair, by this perverse definition of fairness, is to eliminate decks altogether and make the result of every match up a coin toss, using a quantum entropy source to derive a random result.
The only way BGs can be 100% fair in all aspects is giving the same defaulted deck to everybody with the same set of masteries and making everyone face each other in a league structure.
That's not fair, because players with more knowledge and experience still have an advantage. The only way to make it 100% fair, by this perverse definition of fairness, is to eliminate decks altogether and make the result of every match up a coin toss, using a quantum entropy source to derive a random result.
The only way BGs can be 100% fair in all aspects is giving the same defaulted deck to everybody with the same set of masteries and making everyone face each other in a league structure. Now try selling that proposal to a gacha gaming company.
That's common knowledge. It's why gachas only implement leaderboards for ranking purposes and not competitive. The competitive ways are usually a community effort to get that feeling. Whether its mobile fighting game, city builder, they walk the tight rope to not use term competitive because its misleading and incorrect. You already know my stance though. But there are players speaking on BGs as if its an actual ranked competitive mode. And they invalidate actual ranked competitive games when brought up for possible implementation for improvements.
Then how do you consider it a measure of performance if one of those Rosters ensures a Loss no matter how the other Player performs? That really removes the performance from the equation from my perspective.
1. Losses measure performance. It means you lost.
2. There is no such thing as a roster difference alone guaranteeing loss. You might have a very low chance of winning. But I will bet the best player with a UC roster beats the worst player with a top roster at least 10% of the time.
I have beaten players with rosters ten times stronger than me while playing on alt accounts. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. So there's no such thing as a match up determined only by roster. Even with a huge roster advantage, you still have to play the match. A good player with a great roster can beat a great player with a bad roster. But that is as it should be.
If nascar and professional sports teams allowed anybody to race or play those analogies would be accurate. They don't. Cars are regulated and have to be approved. You also have to have a license to be a nascar driver. Sports teams have criterias and separate divisions/leagues to bring integrity to their competition. And even within the same league, association, etc., those teams have guidelines that must be met.
I don't think you understand what analogies even are. When someone says X is like Y, in that these properties of X are similar to those properties of Y, and thus function similarly, that's how humans attempt to explain a position. This is not a mathematical proof that Y must function like X, such that any difference between X and Y invalidates the analogy.
I think most people reading my post understood the analogy, which is the purpose of the analogy. They might not agree with the position, but the analogy is only there to describe the position, not to prove the position is correct. So in what way does licensing NASCAR drivers invalidate my analogy? In what way does it confuses or otherwise mislead people reading the post and trying to understand what I am trying to express, at least for those making an honest attempt to do so?
This community use analogies as a position of fact. As for your licensing question, you have to be a licensed Nascar driver to race in Nascar. Nascar won't just give anyone a license to race and tell them good luck in the competition.
The only way BGs can be 100% fair in all aspects is giving the same defaulted deck to everybody with the same set of masteries and making everyone face each other in a league structure. Now try selling that proposal to a gacha gaming company.
That's common knowledge. It's why gachas only implement leaderboards for ranking purposes and not competitive. The competitive ways are usually a community effort to get that feeling. Whether its mobile fighting game, city builder, they walk the tight rope to not use term competitive because its misleading and incorrect. You already know my stance though. But there are players speaking on BGs as if its an actual ranked competitive mode. And they invalidate actual ranked competitive games when brought up for possible implementation for improvements.
Its obviously not as common as you think, at least in this community.
The only way BGs can be 100% fair in all aspects is giving the same defaulted deck to everybody with the same set of masteries and making everyone face each other in a league structure. Now try selling that proposal to a gacha gaming company.
That's common knowledge. It's why gachas only implement leaderboards for ranking purposes and not competitive. The competitive ways are usually a community effort to get that feeling. Whether its mobile fighting game, city builder, they walk the tight rope to not use term competitive because its misleading and incorrect. You already know my stance though. But there are players speaking on BGs as if its an actual ranked competitive mode. And they invalidate actual ranked competitive games when brought up for possible implementation for improvements.
Its obviously not as common as you think, at least in this community.
Comments
Listen, if you're against the idea just say so lol
Of course it doesnt apply to all players, not all players are skilled.
That's the whole idea that fuels this "F2P vs. P2P" narrative.
We judge competitor performance, period. If I'm a NASCAR driver and I am just as fast around the track as another driver, but his car is better, does that mean I'm actually a better driver? Well, technically yes. But we don't award wins in NASCAR for the best driver. We award wins in NASCAR to the team that goes around the track over and over the fastest.
Your roster is your equipment. Its your race car, its your running shoes it is part and parcel of your strength as a competitor. MCOC is a game that is built on roster progress. Every single game mode is a place to show off the strength of that roster progress and benefit from it. Battlegrounds is another such mode.
If the intent was the find the best driver and not the best overall competitive performance, they would just give us all the same roster. Competitions sometimes do that: the old iROC races for example. But Battlegrounds is a game mode in service of a game built to encourage people to build roster. In fact, the devs removed deck matching from BG for the very specific reason that it discouraged players from building roster.
It is important to remember that competitions are never about fairness, in the sense of giving everyone an equal chance of winning. That's a lottery. Competitions are about fairness in the sense of everyone obeying a certain set of rules designed to structure the competition, but within those rules everyone is assumed to try to do anything possible to gain an advantage over the competition. Competition is literally about competitors trying to get advantages over each other and give themselves the best chance of winning. Building roster is part of what's allowed in BG because BG exists in a game that is built on encouraging players to build roster, and so players gaining advantages over other players by bringing a stronger roster is just as much "fair" as one NASCAR team bringing a faster car to the race. So long as they play within the rules, bringing a faster car is not fair in the sense that it gives that driver a higher chance of winning, but that's the point.
We are not looking for the best performer. We are looking for the best performance. In BG, as in every competitive activity.
Even if there were no monetary conditions, it goes against the fundamentals of the game. If you can't beat content, you do easier content to gather resources and strengthen your roster. Then you tackle the harder content. In this setting you cannot have a game mode which actively discourages stronger rosters.
You can't put F2P players into a separate division and isolate them from the whales, because that means they never get a chance to compete against them. You've basically created a paywall that F2P players will never be able to breach. F2P players deserve to compete against everyone.
The reason why we just have one big competitive pool is because for competitive players (and BG is a competition, and should lean towards their needs) one big competitive pool means everyone has an opportunity to get as high as their performance can take them.
If there was a UC division and a Cav division and a TB division and a Paragon division, that doesn't just protect the UCs from the big bad Paragons. It means no UC gets to compete against the Cavs. Even if you are the best UC and could easily beat half the Cavs in the Cav division, too bad. You are sentenced to play in the UC division until you level up and become Cav.
The best UCs should be able to rise above the worst Cavs. The best UC can probably beat the worst TBs. We don't actually know if the best Cav out there could beat most of the Paragons, but it is possible. In a competition, where we are prioritizing competitive spirit, we should give them a chance to try. And if that means the worst UCs get pummelled while we are giving the best UCs that chance, that's life. We're handing them three complete tiers of BG rewards (Bronze, Silver, Gold) to fight over without ever seeing many if any stronger players at all. If that's not enough for them, then they can go grind arena. Losing players who do not want to ever see anyone else except each other doesn't hurt the game mode at all, because they are invisible either way.
We want to encourage players to participate in BG, but we want to do that by encouraging them to *become* competitors themselves. If they genuinely do not want to become competitors, that's fine. Collect Gold rewards and then go do something else. No harm no foul. But non-competitive players do not dictate to the competitive players the terms for participation in a competitive game mode by design. That's selfish. If you don't like grinding arena, don't do it. If you don't like incursions, don't do it. If you don't like competition, don't try to eliminate competition from the only head to head competitive game mode, and don't try to redefine what competition is to suit.
In any case, I'm talking about the Matches that have such a difference in Rosters that it means even if both sides play with perfect technique, one side will lose. It's just a certainty with the backdrop of how Champs interact with each other in combination of Nodes. So my question is, how is it a measure of performance when both performances are perfect, and one has no choice but to lose?
Finally someone saying it in a detailed manner.
People who just want rewards and not care about competing should not dictate how the competition is managed, structured or set.
To put it another way, the difference is feedback. Both SMMR and ELO attempt, in different ways, to determine the "true" performance of the player by measuring their wins and losses. Roster matching does not. And so in game theory terms, ELO is self-correcting, SMMR is a correction factor, and roster matching is putting your thumbs on the scales permanently.
Now try selling that proposal to a gacha gaming company.
I think most people reading my post understood the analogy, which is the purpose of the analogy. They might not agree with the position, but the analogy is only there to describe the position, not to prove the position is correct. So in what way does licensing NASCAR drivers invalidate my analogy? In what way does it confuses or otherwise mislead people reading the post and trying to understand what I am trying to express, at least for those making an honest attempt to do so?
2. There is no such thing as a roster difference alone guaranteeing loss. You might have a very low chance of winning. But I will bet the best player with a UC roster beats the worst player with a top roster at least 10% of the time.
I have beaten players with rosters ten times stronger than me while playing on alt accounts. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. So there's no such thing as a match up determined only by roster. Even with a huge roster advantage, you still have to play the match. A good player with a great roster can beat a great player with a bad roster. But that is as it should be.