You can stop spamming the comments from Mods anytime now.
So you'd like us to add Mod comments that disprove your arguments to your list of arguments that we're not allowed to use to disprove your argument. I'll put them right under Brian Grant.
Can't even suggest changes to improve the mode competitively without those getting argued. The same people disputing the people grieving over matchmaking are disputing improvements for more competitive implementations.
That's what keeps me enganged on this threads, how can you ask for something more competitive, when you have people complaining its too hard already. That is literally putting salt on a wound.
A lot of those complaints originate from how the mode was introduced. Its been a year and its season 11 and the best change to the mode was seeding. Maybe introducing ranked and unranked BGs will help. Playing unranked will only allow objectives to be completed. So trophie accumulation will be slower unless playing ranked.
There is no fixing now from introduction to today. Several people suggested making a 2nd BG for UC/Cav. If that ever happened TBs and new Paragons would be fuming from being stuck with try hards.
Thats happening now without the change. That change would be more in line with a competitive environment. Possibly encourage players to push progression a bit if they wanted the TB/PG pot instead of the UC/Cav pot. Change is tough for many people though. But changes and improvements to the mode to appear more competitive instead of just calling it a competitive mode may allow casual players to see it that way.
Hope you are right, people are stubborn though. I mean look at this initial thread, they wanted more points for beating a bigger account.
I believe more something should be rewarded for beating a higher ranked player. Barely a difference between beating a top ranked player and a lower ranked player. The points and scoring system is very predictable to where it's more about how many marks you use for the matches you play.
Higher ranked yes, bigger account is not the same as higher ranked though. Rarely happened before that a Silver 2 played someone on Silver 1...
Yeah not much you can do about accounts being bigger other than improving your own. Kabam would have to add some kind of deck point system where you're rewarded for having a stronger deck, but also penalized if you lose since it could reward the other player with a lower deck rating more points. If deck ratings are similar it could offset. That'd be tricky. How AW is calculated could be worth exploring adding to BGs system. BGs is such a good mode the possibilities are endless.
That's GC though, there is a post I saw from the guy who got disqualified, saying something about searching matches for 6 points if he won or minus a ridiculous ammount if he lost, or something like that.
That Post was shut down, and to be honest it gave the impression of justifying at best.
Well last season I played a match where I won 13 points and lost 16 on the next. Its a FACT. Disprove it with your vast experience in GC matches please.
Can't even suggest changes to improve the mode competitively without those getting argued. The same people disputing the people grieving over matchmaking are disputing improvements for more competitive implementations.
That's what keeps me enganged on this threads, how can you ask for something more competitive, when you have people complaining its too hard already. That is literally putting salt on a wound.
A lot of those complaints originate from how the mode was introduced. Its been a year and its season 11 and the best change to the mode was seeding. Maybe introducing ranked and unranked BGs will help. Playing unranked will only allow objectives to be completed. So trophie accumulation will be slower unless playing ranked.
There is no fixing now from introduction to today. Several people suggested making a 2nd BG for UC/Cav. If that ever happened TBs and new Paragons would be fuming from being stuck with try hards.
Thats happening now without the change. That change would be more in line with a competitive environment. Possibly encourage players to push progression a bit if they wanted the TB/PG pot instead of the UC/Cav pot. Change is tough for many people though. But changes and improvements to the mode to appear more competitive instead of just calling it a competitive mode may allow casual players to see it that way.
Hope you are right, people are stubborn though. I mean look at this initial thread, they wanted more points for beating a bigger account.
I believe more something should be rewarded for beating a higher ranked player. Barely a difference between beating a top ranked player and a lower ranked player. The points and scoring system is very predictable to where it's more about how many marks you use for the matches you play.
Now that I think about it, that could be a possibility that dissuades advantage-taking. If there was a Points system similar to Arenas where beating a larger Opponent gives more Points, and smaller gives less. I'm not sure how the practical implementation would look for that, but I like where the idea is coming from.
Would be tough for sure. And would probably require a full restructure of the mode. Making matchups, who you face in matches, how you perform in those matches, and winning or losing matter more can be great. Sort of like AW. You can win/lose that war, but depending on how the alliance performed you get more or less points.
Yes, I could actually put an idea or two together. It might be a 180 but it's got potential.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
And the thing is, even tho I can overcome those big guys with better skills so I finish faster/with more HP even tho Im facing stronger defenders, I dont think skill is being as important at least on VT as the roster itself is, its the main point I wanted to talk about, feels like BGs right now is 70% roster and 30% skill, since its supposed to be the main competitive mode where you show whos better, I think it should be at least 50% both, and again, MAYBE IM WRONG, but I think this is mostly the case right now on BGs
These percentages (and mine) are highly subjective, but 70/30 implies that the overwhelming majority of your ultimate placement is due to roster and not to your overall skill (which includes playing skill, drafting skill, deck construction from roster, etc). This seems unlikely to me, as I have been able to get alt accounts with mediocre Cavalier strength rosters to GC. GC contains on the order of 10% of all the players who enter BG, plus or minus. There is no way a Cav account with a mediocre roster is in the top 10% of all accounts by roster strength among all BG participants by a wide margin. So the only way I'm getting into GC is with extreme luck, or superior skill.
And I'm not the highest skill BG player either. I'm sure I'm no slouch, but I'm not among the top competitive players in the game. So I cannot be getting to GC on the basis of astronomically high skill either. So my skill advantage over the average player, which is probably substantial but not extreme, is enough to counter balance a very weak roster. This suggests to me that roster itself is contributing not just less than 70% of my performance, but less than half. In fact, probably close to 25% when you consider how many other very strong factors there are. "Skill" is encompassing a number of distinct factors. There's deck construction which is not the same thing a roster strength - you aren't always placing your "strongest" champs into your deck. Then there's drafting: I've beaten many players with stronger decks in the draft, before a single fight has been fought, by gaining a sufficient advantage there that it tips the balance towards me enough for me to just have to not make a dumb mistake to win.
And then there's luck. There's always some luck in BG. It can't be 70% roster 30% skill because that excludes good and bad fortune, and no matter how strong or weak the opponent is, random chance can always tip the scales there, both in the draft and in the fights themselves. Even against ridiculously strong competition, there's always a lingering 5-10% chance to win almost any match. In more even matches, the effects of chance can be somewhat higher than that.
I still say that in very broad terms, roster strength, combat skill, BG mode strategy, and overall champion knowledge contribute roughly evenly to match results. I could say 25%/25%/25%/25% but that would imply a higher degree of accuracy than I think is possible. And luck factors in there somewhere, probably less than each of those four factors, but not insignificantly either. Its about even across the board though on things within the players control. I've won matches by outperforming my opponent on each of those factors individually with all other things being roughly equal. And I've gotten lucky here and there as well.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
In the interests of comparing notes - and as an admitted pretty darn good home chef - how would you go about preparing the posts for consumption?
I would probably add corn starch and sauté them in butter to add a light crunch. Make a wine reduction to add a more full flavour, but maybe add lemon zest or lemon juice for a little bit of citrus zing to make it a tad more lively.
Something like this wouldn’t keep the mode competitive while balancing the playing field? Each set of progression lvls would have different ranks and star lvls they can use in a deck and I’m not saying this concept exactly but something similar.
Spenders will still have an advantage because they will have all the best attackers and defenders ranked but would balance the playing field a lot more.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
In the interests of comparing notes - and as an admitted pretty darn good home chef - how would you go about preparing the posts for consumption?
I would probably add corn starch and sauté them in butter to add a light crunch. Make a wine reduction to add a more full flavour, but maybe add lemon zest or lemon juice for a little bit of citrus zing to make it a tad more lively.
They tend to be pretty salty, so bring extra water.
Spenders will still have an advantage because they will have all the best attackers and defenders ranked but would balance the playing field a lot more.
First, why do we want to balance the playing field? That's not a joke. Competitions are fundamentally about competitors finding ways to gain advantages over each other. Why do we want to balance the playing field. Before you find ways to balance the playing field, it is important to demonstrate if this is even a desirable outcome.
If, let's say, Kenya happens to win the decathlon three Olympics in a row, do you try to level the playing field in the next Olympics to make it easier for everyone else to win? Why not?
Some game modes have competitive elements, but are not really competitions. AQ has competitive elements, but it isn't a competition per se. Alliance war is a competitive mode in a way AQ is not. When you have a game mode that is not a competition but it contains competitive elements, the competitive elements are like seasoning. We can discuss how much salt and pepper a game mode should have to be palatable.
But BG is an actual competitive mode, it is a competition. As some have pointed out, it is a flawed competition, and it contains compromises to that competitive nature, but it is still a competition. In BG, competition is not seasoning. It is the meat of the mode. Here, we don't ask how much competition would be enough for it, any more than we ask how much meat should a roast contain. Instead we ask how much competition can we compromise and still have a meaningful competition. The burden of proof goes in the opposite direction. We take no competitive elements away from the game mode unless we get a provably necessary return for that compromise.
So when someone says "wouldn't this still be competitive enough" there is no such thing as competitive enough. The goal should be for it to be as competitive as possible.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
In the interests of comparing notes - and as an admitted pretty darn good home chef - how would you go about preparing the posts for consumption?
I would probably add corn starch and sauté them in butter to add a light crunch. Make a wine reduction to add a more full flavour, but maybe add lemon zest or lemon juice for a little bit of citrus zing to make it a tad more lively.
I'm more of a pasta person, so incorporating them into a fresh tagliatelle with a rich ragu sauce would probably be my choice.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster or your roster.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
Not only do you not understand competitions, you do not understand English. There's no way to discuss how competitions work with someone who thinks the only two options that exist are "roster does not matter at all" and "roster is the only thing that matters." Virtually the entire subject of discussion lies between those two extremes, which is like trying to discuss economics with someone who thinks the only two numbers that exist are zero and one.
I'm going to spare you more than that, because it should be clear to everyone reading, on *both* sides of this discussion, that you're living in a very weird world where not only do competitions have no meaning, neither do words.
You can be as condescending as you like. I've made my points. You cannot imply that both sides have a chance of winning if the Rosters they're using can prohibit that.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
Dr. Zola
No, the issue is one side feeling entitled to have an unfair system because the consequences of such have no effect on them.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
Dr. Zola
No, the issue is one side feeling entitled to have an unfair system because the consequences of such have no effect on them.
I consider larger accounts adversely affected by small accounts getting chaperoned all the way to GC.
Why is preferred matchmaking to (at least) Platinum not good enough for you?
@DNA3000 Most games and competitions play with the same tools and rules and skill is the deciding factor of who wins.
That's not true, you can't have 2 Lebrons one on each side, you can't have 2 Messi's one on each side.. when tournaments end they choose 1 MVP not an MVP from each side. Every competition is about gaining and advantage within the rules (otherwise you get disqualified and called a cheater of course) Its about beating your opponent, not about winning but making them feel good they put on a good performance .
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
Dr. Zola
No, the issue is one side feeling entitled to have an unfair system because the consequences of such have no effect on them.
I consider larger accounts adversely affected by small accounts getting chaperoned all the way to GC.
Why is preferred matchmaking to (at least) Platinum not good enough for you?
Dr. Zola
He is not talking about him remember? He is defending the smaller accounts (👀), he is an 8 year experienced veteran. Nothing he claims is for personal gain.
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?
We call those matches "all the matches." Because in every match, if both players draft and play perfectly, the side with the stronger roster will win. Because outside of random chance generating a completely busted draft what else would decide who wins?
Right. My point is, you can't claim that Roster size has no bearing at all with that fact.
No one claims roster has no bearing on who wins. So if that is your point, that point is conceded. Roster has an effect. Now may I ask why, if that is the point you wish to make, you would say "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" which is demonstrably false. This seems to be an inefficient way to attempt to make an obvious point.
That's what I disagree with. You're claiming any Match can be won within BGs by either side. I think that's misguiding. We all know there are Matches that can't be won. The difference is, you're arguing that it's acceptable because it's a competition. I think that's not a justifiable reason to make Matches like that possible, in whatever system. Adjust the Rewards accordingly, gate progress if needed, but having a system that places the highest Accounts against the lowest Accounts is quite honestly, a setup. Not in the intentional sense, as in trying to set Players up. Just a setup because the outcome is already determined before the Match is played out. And that, my friend, is what discourages people from trying at all.
Part of the reason why people honestly find your posts annoying is because you seem willing to fluidly say anything without regard for what you're saying, and this is an example. You say roster advantage can make fights absolutely unwinnable, then you contradict that by saying you didn't mean that you only meant to say roster affects the outcome, then you switch back and say that some matches can't be won again. Nobody wants to discuss a subject in that kind of framework, because it is impossible to make any progress. I can't refute any of your statements, because you're willing to abandon them to deflect the counterargument, and then return right back to them as if daring me to try again.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
I'm pretty sure my points were clear. You can feel free to call me annoying and try to dissect my comments, but the assertion was made that Roster doesn't matter and there are no unwinnable Matches. I said two things. There are unwinnable Matches, and I pointed out thar Roster does factor in. You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying. I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find a quote from me that says roster doesn't matter, and I'll stop posting on this subject from now on.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
Pretty sure you implied that any Match can be won by either side. That's incorrect, and that implies Roster doesn't matter.
It is not like my posts are hard to find. Find me a quote that says roster doesn't matter. In the English language, "roster doesn't matter" is not synonymous with "any Match can be won by either side."
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
Disagree. That's exactly the same thing. You're saying any Match the system allows means both sides are capable of winning and I pointed out with a very simple example that even with both sides playing perfectly, there are Matches that guarantee one will lose. Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
If you had faced me when I was trying to finish the “Complete 10 Matches” objective you could have beaten me regardless of the strength of my roster.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
I'm really growing tired of people splitting hairs on the definition of fair, as if it's some ambiguous concept. Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
That’s likely the issue here: grade school definitions of fairness were often founded on notions that, once we reached adulthood, were far more nuanced than we initially understood them to be.
Dr. Zola
No, the issue is one side feeling entitled to have an unfair system because the consequences of such have no effect on them.
I consider larger accounts adversely affected by small accounts getting chaperoned all the way to GC.
Why is preferred matchmaking to (at least) Platinum not good enough for you?
Dr. Zola
He is not talking about him remember? He is defending the smaller accounts (👀), he is an 8 year experienced veteran. Nothing he claims is for personal gain.
Well, by “you” I meant a collective “you.” But it probably doesn’t matter.
@DNA3000 Most games and competitions play with the same tools and rules and skill is the deciding factor of who wins.
That's not true, you can't have 2 Lebrons one on each side, you can't have 2 Messi's one on each side.. when tournaments end they choose 1 MVP not an MVP from each side. Every competition is about gaining and advantage within the rules (otherwise you get disqualified and called a cheater of course) Its about beating your opponent, not about winning but making them feel good they put on a good performance .
Messi is a coward - too scared to get lit up by Atlanta!
Comments
Disprove it with your vast experience in GC matches please.
Either you believe that roster advantage can completely eliminate all benefits of skill or you do not. If you believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill, and this is disprovable and thus false, or you do not believe roster advantage can eliminate all benefits of skill and then we're in the territory of discussing degree: how large of an advantage should be considered fairly achievable. Which is a completely different discussion.
As to matching the highest accounts against the lowest accounts, this happens all the time in competitions. In tournaments like the NCAA basketball tournament, the highest seeds are matched against the lowest seeds. That seems unfair, so why do they do it? The reason is instructive: they do it so that the teams' regular season performance is rewarded. The tournament exists to find the best team. The tournament itself ultimately decides this, but the tournament wants to weight the teams' performance during the regular season as contributing to the overall result. Thus, teams have to play as well as possible during the regular season to try to get the best seeding. The tournament isn't trying to find the most equal match ups. That would match #1 against #2, #3 against #4, and so on. But that means that of all the teams in the country, either the top team in the country or the second best in the country gets immediately eliminated. Meanwhile, of the two worst performing teams in the country, at least one survives into the next round no matter how badly they perform. That's not what the tournament wants: they want to balance what the teams do during the regular season with how they perform during the tournament. So high seeds get the advantage of playing the low seeds.
This is very analogous to the priorities in MCOC. In MCOC, the developers want to reward those who spend the time (and money) to build roster and construct strong decks. When they were matching everyone by roster all the way up to GC, it was like #1 was playing #2 and #300000 was playing #300001. No matter how good the top players played, half of them would still lose because they were playing each other. Meanwhile no matter how poorly they played half of the weakest players would win and advance. This is essentially a roster strength penalty. That's not just me saying that, the devs essentially asserted the same thing in their view. That's why eventually roster matching goes away. They don't have an interest in matching the strongest players against the weakest players like March Madness. But they do not have an interest in siloing the players by roster strength either, so by P2 everyone plays everyone else.
Also, the idea that this sort of thing discourages so many players that it will deplete the game mode of too many players is mathematically impossible. Once we get to P2, matches are randomized. That means on average all of us will be matching against a random cross section of all the other players that reached that tier. That means by definition if the UC players in Diamond are consistently matching against extremely overmatched players, there can't be very many of them. If there were a lot of them, they would start matching against each other a statistically significant percentage of time. So if UCs see nothing but strong Paragons, that means there can only be nothing but strong Paragons in that tier. The UCs must be only an extremely tiny percentage of those players, and even if they all quit that would represent an insignificant amount of players. Conversely, if there are a lot of them, such that losing them would be problematic, then that means they cannot all be seeing nothing but strong Paragons. They must be seeing each other a high percentage of the time (which is probably how they got there in the first place). So in terms of what it means to the game mode, enforcing competitive norms isn't going to hurt.
It does potentially hurt individual players, but these are players that are being given protection from competition for almost half of the Victory Track. If we have to bribe them more than that to convince them to play, they are too expensive to have in my opinion. I wouldn't pay more just to convince them to participate. The on ramp in VT is not intended to be bribery. It is intended to be safe harbor. I personally suggested such a safe harbor to ensure that players who are unsure if they want to compete have an environment where they can learn the ropes. They can learn the mode, learn the basics, and ease into the more competitive tiers of the game mode. It is there so players can learn, can acclimate, and can decide for themselves if 1v1 competition is something they want to do. If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine. If they are not sure, they have an opportunity to find out.
But if a player doesn't want to compete against everyone else and instead demands that this requirement be removed or else they won't play, then I would walk away from that offer.
You're also misconstruing my points about participation. I don't believe I ever implied people don't want to fight against everyone else. I said if you give them 0 chance of winning from the start, or you make it such a miserable experience to get anywhere that they don't find it worth the effort, then they're going to stop trying.
I'm not accepting anyone twisting my thoughts. Even from you.
Find me a quote from anyone that says roster doesn't matter in the literal (and not facetious) sense, and I'll specifically reply to that post to contradict that statement.
Find someone who actually believes your points were clear, and I'll eat their posts.
And I'm not the highest skill BG player either. I'm sure I'm no slouch, but I'm not among the top competitive players in the game. So I cannot be getting to GC on the basis of astronomically high skill either. So my skill advantage over the average player, which is probably substantial but not extreme, is enough to counter balance a very weak roster. This suggests to me that roster itself is contributing not just less than 70% of my performance, but less than half. In fact, probably close to 25% when you consider how many other very strong factors there are. "Skill" is encompassing a number of distinct factors. There's deck construction which is not the same thing a roster strength - you aren't always placing your "strongest" champs into your deck. Then there's drafting: I've beaten many players with stronger decks in the draft, before a single fight has been fought, by gaining a sufficient advantage there that it tips the balance towards me enough for me to just have to not make a dumb mistake to win.
And then there's luck. There's always some luck in BG. It can't be 70% roster 30% skill because that excludes good and bad fortune, and no matter how strong or weak the opponent is, random chance can always tip the scales there, both in the draft and in the fights themselves. Even against ridiculously strong competition, there's always a lingering 5-10% chance to win almost any match. In more even matches, the effects of chance can be somewhat higher than that.
I still say that in very broad terms, roster strength, combat skill, BG mode strategy, and overall champion knowledge contribute roughly evenly to match results. I could say 25%/25%/25%/25% but that would imply a higher degree of accuracy than I think is possible. And luck factors in there somewhere, probably less than each of those four factors, but not insignificantly either. Its about even across the board though on things within the players control. I've won matches by outperforming my opponent on each of those factors individually with all other things being roughly equal. And I've gotten lucky here and there as well.
I would probably add corn starch and sauté them in butter to add a light crunch. Make a wine reduction to add a more full flavour, but maybe add lemon zest or lemon juice for a little bit of citrus zing to make it a tad more lively.
Spenders will still have an advantage because they will have all the best attackers and defenders ranked but would balance the playing field a lot more.
On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That doesn't mean who is playing doesn't matter. Anyone who knows anything about competition understands this basic concept implicitly.
If, let's say, Kenya happens to win the decathlon three Olympics in a row, do you try to level the playing field in the next Olympics to make it easier for everyone else to win? Why not?
Some game modes have competitive elements, but are not really competitions. AQ has competitive elements, but it isn't a competition per se. Alliance war is a competitive mode in a way AQ is not. When you have a game mode that is not a competition but it contains competitive elements, the competitive elements are like seasoning. We can discuss how much salt and pepper a game mode should have to be palatable.
But BG is an actual competitive mode, it is a competition. As some have pointed out, it is a flawed competition, and it contains compromises to that competitive nature, but it is still a competition. In BG, competition is not seasoning. It is the meat of the mode. Here, we don't ask how much competition would be enough for it, any more than we ask how much meat should a roast contain. Instead we ask how much competition can we compromise and still have a meaningful competition. The burden of proof goes in the opposite direction. We take no competitive elements away from the game mode unless we get a provably necessary return for that compromise.
So when someone says "wouldn't this still be competitive enough" there is no such thing as competitive enough. The goal should be for it to be as competitive as possible.
Spare me the repetitive assertion that it's a competition, and people who have points to the contrary have no idea about competitions. You can create anything into a competition. That doesn't mean the quality of said competition is in the spirit of fair gaming.
Also: define “fair gaming.” Explicitly.
Dr. Zola
Spirit of fair play, not dirty, not swayed by the system to guarantee a Loss regardless of performance, not manipulated by some outside force by grey-area behaviors like Tanking, I mean I'm pretty sure we all learned the difference between fair and unfair in grade school, and yet we still have these dissections on the Forum which serve only one purpose. To distort the real issue.
I'm going to spare you more than that, because it should be clear to everyone reading, on *both* sides of this discussion, that you're living in a very weird world where not only do competitions have no meaning, neither do words.
Dr. Zola
Why is preferred matchmaking to (at least) Platinum not good enough for you?
Dr. Zola
Every competition is about gaining and advantage within the rules (otherwise you get disqualified and called a cheater of course)
Its about beating your opponent, not about winning but making them feel good they put on a good performance .
Dr. Zola